• 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

Marantz 19 the Best Piece of Audio Equipment Ever made

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

vinny55

Active Member
Banned
Marantz 19 the Best Sounding Solid State Audio Ever made

I dont think ive ever listened to a piece of audio equipment ever made that sounded sweeter than a Marantz 19. it looks awseome too. with a price tag o1500 dollars back in 1970 attests to its high degree of workmanship and quality.
i beleive saul Marantz put all the years of experience and expertise into this receiver. The pinnacle of anything made before or after. Yes even better than 2500 or 2600 monster receivers.
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
An argument might be made (bear in mind I have never heard one) that the 19 is the best Receiver ever made. I don't know that to be true , but it could be argued I am sure.

But best audio equipment ever made? I would think that is hardly possible. I have other gear made by Saul himself that would likely blow the 19 out of the water. Just my 2 cents.

Scott
 
I've never personally heard a 19, my 18 sounds superb, I know the tuners were modeled after different components but the look was similar. I have a mix of tube and SS and sorry to say it my tube stuff blows it away. Now as far as workmanship, the quality is excellent however the placement of components on the bottom of the unit sides is a nightmare to work on, that part is what annoys me about the 18 and of course the poor transformer in them. They fixed that stuff in the 19 plus added a feature to turn off the scope, wish I had that.
 
The 18 was the only receiver fully developed under Saul's control. The price of the 19 Custom Calibrated receiver was for a short time $1,200, then dropped to a $1,000.

If you think the 19 is great and can get past only 35 watts per channell get a 18 as it is the better sounding receiver though it was not as reliable.

I agree that the 18 and 19 on balance I liked better than the 2500 and 2600.

As to being the best receiver ever having owned a number of 19 during their production life and after, I will not sell them short but I think the Sony STR-6060, 6120, 6200 and Mc 4100 plus for my listening the Philips 797 each are better. I also prefer the 18 over it.
 
At the time the 18 and 19 came out, no question they were far ahead of the competition. It is arguable that no other receiver pushed the envelope so far ahead of the competition. This technology and performance gap is a hallmark of greatness. As far as being the GOAT, technology has marched forward so this will always be open for debate.
 
Slial: Your Avatar is my tuner! - ha!

Having both the 19 and the 18, I'd say that I prefer the sound of the 18 and the looks of the 19. They are both absolutely great units, but needs attention due to age. I Think it's a bit over the top to nominate those receivers to "the best piece of audio ever made".

They cannot be compared to the separates - which overall are more flexible and superbly built. Not to mention the tube units which are outstanding. Oh- did I mention the 500 (if in working condition)?
 
Is it actually yours? I have a 10B as well and just love that photo. I suppose I should shoot my own and use it!

I agree on the separates. It is hardly possible to compare a nice receiver with Tube or Solid state separates from Marantz, Mcintosh or anybody else for that matter. Although one would have to concede that if Saul was involved with the 18 then it is probably overbuilt and awesome sonically. I feel like I need to get me one just to have for a spare room in the house!
 
slial said:
Is it actually yours? I have a 10B as well and just love that photo. I suppose I should shoot my own and use it!

I agree on the separates. It is hardly possible to compare a nice receiver with Tube or Solid state separates from Marantz, Mcintosh or anybody else for that matter. Although one would have to concede that if Saul was involved with the 18 then it is probably overbuilt and awesome sonically. I feel like I need to get me one just to have for a spare room in the house!
Click to expand...

Yes- It is my tuner - I took that picture of it many years ago- (with an analogue camera - scanned it and sent it to Ben Blish at the time, where he was building up his Classic Audio (Marantz) Site). It must have been around 1998 or so. If you like that picture, you're very welcome to use it - I just like that you like it:bigok:
 
bktheking said:
I've never personally heard a 19, my 18 sounds superb, I know the tuners were modeled after different components but the look was similar. I have a mix of tube and SS and sorry to say it my tube stuff blows it away. Now as far as workmanship, the quality is excellent however the placement of components on the bottom of the unit sides is a nightmare to work on, that part is what annoys me about the 18 and of course the poor transformer in them. They fixed that stuff in the 19 plus added a feature to turn off the scope, wish I had that.
Click to expand...


Marantz 18 cost $750 Marantz 19 $1500 Thats double the price The marantz 20 tuner was incorporated into the 19. which was the best tuner marantz ever made even better than 10b 150 and 2130
 
slial said:
Is it actually yours? I have a 10B as well and just love that photo. I suppose I should shoot my own and use it!

I agree on the separates. It is hardly possible to compare a nice receiver with Tube or Solid state separates from Marantz, Mcintosh or anybody else for that matter. Although one would have to concede that if Saul was involved with the 18 then it is probably overbuilt and awesome sonically. I feel like I need to get me one just to have for a spare room in the house!
Click to expand...



Well the Marantz 19 sounds unbeleivable for solid state. It sounds just like tubes. get one and youll see. why do people spend 2000 on ebay at times to buy them?
 
vinny55 said:
Marantz 18 cost $750 Marantz 19 $1500 Thats double the price The marantz 20 tuner was incorporated into the 19. which was the best tuner marantz ever made even better than 10b 150 and 2130
Click to expand...


Where have you learned all this? quite impressing knowledge here.:banana:
 
SoCal Sam said:
At the time the 18 and 19 came out, no question they were far ahead of the competition. It is arguable that no other receiver pushed the envelope so far ahead of the competition. This technology and performance gap is a hallmark of greatness. As far as being the GOAT, technology has marched forward so this will always be open for debate.
Click to expand...


technology may have moved a head but the basic principles in audio havent changed at all.
 
vinny55 said:
Well the Marantz 19 sounds unbeleivable for solid state. It sounds just like tubes. get one and youll see. why do people spend 2000 on ebay at times to buy them?
Click to expand...

This one always cracks me up: "It sounds just like tubes". Really? Then why not just get tubes. Because, you know....they still makes tubes. You can get tubes. Add to that the fact that of the dozen or so things I've owned that people on the 'net have said sounded like tubes- none of them actually have sounded like tubes. In fact, most of the time I'm left wondering, "have these people even heard tubes? I mean, its not that hard to hear real tubes. Because they're out there. In the shape of tubes. And when I hear those bottle shaped lights of goodness I think to myself "this sounds nice'. I don't think "this sounds like tubes!" Instead, I think "this sounds right."

But I guess with the logic above I could also think "this sounds just like a Marantz 19". But then, if that were the case, how would the Marantz 19 be the best sounding piece of audio equipment ever made? Because right then and there, you have walked into a logical fallacy. If something sounds just like something, it then can't be the best. It can only be, at best, equal to that thing that is sounds just like. So at the very least, then, the Marantz 19 would be the king of all audio, only if tubes did not exist. But they DO exist, because there have to be tubes out there for it to sound like them. I mean, how convincing would it be to say that it sounds just like transistors? Because, logically, it does. You can say that about the Marantz 19 and not be walking into a logical dead end. But logic and audio rarely share part of the same circle in the great Ven Diagram of audio. But apparently "tubes" and "Marantz 19" do. So, logically the Marantz 19 sounds just like transistors. Because that is factually true. Subjectively it sounds just like tubes. But that logically means it can't be the best thing ever.

(It could be that I'm trying to talk this thread to death because I smell a troll....shh....).

So if the Venn Diagram of "Marantz" and "tubes" meets at "Marantz 19", then what do we do about the fact that Marantz made tube gear? Does the Marantz 19 sound like any tubes? Or does it sound like Marantz tubes? Or does it sound like Dynaco? And if it sounds like Dynaco, do we then have to ask whether or not Dynaco or Marantz is the better audio gear? Because how can the Marantz 19 be the best audio gear of ALL TIME, if it sounds like tubes that aren't the best tubes of ALL TIME. I hope you're all following me here. This is all very important.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom