Marantz 4300 Quad receiver vs. non-Quad

[ymarko]

Quad receivers have additional Stereo mode as well. Particularly, Marantz 4300 has 100 wpc in stereo mode and built very heavy, above 50 lb. How it sounds in comparison to large Marantz stereo receivers?

For instance, right now eBay is selling Marantz 4300 (not mine) and the seller says, “Sounds much better than a 2325”. Is it accurate to say?

Generally speaking, does Marantz Quad receiver in Stereo mode sound different then Marantz non-Quad receiver?

 

[bktheking]

Don't know what the seller is basing it on, sounds like snake oil bullshit to me. Stereo mode is 2 channel just like any other 2 channel marantz receiver. The difference is in the quad function vs a 2 channel, the quad has extra fuctionality to simulate 4 channel sound by adding an adjustable delay between the front and rear speakers giving a hall effect. Stereo is stereo, the ability to separate a single fm source into 2 channels, right and left, the diff would be in the tuner design and ability to be more selective. That's if were are speaking fm here. Quads have an extra set of outputs for the rear and a switch giving you the ability to bridge opts into 2 channels (at least from what I've seen), they are a totally different design.

 

[Punker X]

I love the 4300, Great sounding Marantz receiver, not sure I would say it sounds better than a 2325, would say that pretty close to the same..

There is more wiring and more added circuitry for the quad, so in the less in is more vain, it doe have that against it.

 

[Tom Smith]

I have a 4300 and used it for about 2 years. It sounded great and looked GREAT until the outputs began to fail on the Back set of 2 channels. I had used it in the Man Cave which included 2 sets of speakers. With the 2 sets not setup in a square or circle I used the dials to help in a funky separation trick. Once the back channels failed I bought a SR4600 and like the greater control of the channels.
After having a 2252B in the 70s, a 4300 in the 2010s and a SR4600 more recently I would say you would need several models online for YOUR ear to tell a difference. I doubt you will find differences.
I would say the older equipment is harder to get repaired now a days ... but repairing was not apart of your question.

 

[bobensen]

I actually have 2 4300's and when I compare them to my 2230 and 2385, they really do sound similar,but not the same, I'm just getting into the hobby and don't have my ears trained well enough yet. I actually do prefer the look of the 4300 compared to other units such as the 2230 in my opinion. (my black 2385 is an exception) They are great receivers and being a quad, its kind of nice to have that extra rear channel when you need it and combine front and rear when you don't, in return doubling the output power.

 

[jstang]

Agree with Punkerx.

I have two refurb/recapped 4400s for years now. They are very very close to the 4300. The quad units have been known to sound better overal in quad than they sound in stereo mode. But better than a 2325? Hmmmm, I would not bet against a well running 2325.

Because in stereo mode the quad units are in "bridged" mode which means more electronics and less Damping for the speakers.

They sound great once refurbed in stereo or quad. But the quads units have a ton of caps.....

Sound better than a 2325? Hard for me to agree having never owned a 2325.... But given two equally refurbed units....I would not bet against the 2325 for stereo.

I run my 4400s as surround amps with DP870 Marantz sound processor in 4 channel. They do sound great like that....and love them in 2 channel too.

Jk

I love the 4300, Great sounding Marantz receiver, not sure I would say it sounds better than a 2325, would say that pretty close to the same..

There is more wiring and more added circuitry for the quad, so in the less in is more vain, it doe have that against it.

 

[stereofisher]

I would have to agree.

Don't know what the seller is basing it on, sounds like snake oil bullshit to me. Stereo mode is 2 channel just like any other 2 channel marantz receiver. The difference is in the quad function vs a 2 channel, the quad has extra fuctionality to simulate 4 channel sound by adding an adjustable delay between the front and rear speakers giving a hall effect. Stereo is stereo, the ability to separate a single fm source into 2 channels, right and left, the diff would be in the tuner design and ability to be more selective. That's if were are speaking fm here. Quads have an extra set of outputs for the rear and a switch giving you the ability to bridge opts into 2 channels (at least from what I've seen), they are a totally different design.

Having owned and sold Marantz receivers in the 70s I have listened to them. Got a 4270 free from a customer. Like the 4300 its a beast!! Just under 50 lbs. Thought it was toast as the customer said his kid blew it up. He wrecked the speakers, not the Marantz Rebulbed it. Needs the pointer light and an Fm light. The FM light looks horrible to replace.

As far as sound, I agree it sounds like a two channel. My shop setup has 4 speakers so it running in 4 channel. The sound is very good. FM is close to my Pioneer TX9100 tuner. My 4270 was free. Currently its my bench amp. Dont know if I will keep it. but for now it the shop amp. Fun to listen to. Got a Dual 1009,TEAC 1250 reel to reel, TEAC 450 cassette, and Pionner TX 7100. Got 4 tuners two need to go. Like the Marantz, the Pioneer TX 7100 cleaned up nicely.

Hope this helps. A good sounding set. They do have a lot of circuits under the hood makeing it hard to get at things. Beware of this. Good luck.

Eric two headphones for quad

 

[fiddlefye]

I have two 4300s and love them. Most of the time I run them at 40 w/ch in quad mode as that bis more than sufficient for the spaces they reside in, but occasionally I have run them bridged and they really put out. The 100 w/ch bridged rating is absurdly conservative to put it mildly. I used one with a pair of Klipsche KG4s at an outdoor 50th birthday bash for my fiancee last summer and with the volume set at about 10 o'clock they rocked out the neighbourhood.

 

[fiddlefye]

I love the 4300, Great sounding Marantz receiver, not sure I would say it sounds better than a 2325, would say that pretty close to the same..

There is more wiring and more added circuitry for the quad, so in the less in is more vain, it doe have that against it.

That one you aligned the tuner on for me is still working great and I have a second that will be coming your way one of these days for the same treatment. Really pretty with the wood case and they have a wonderful flexibility to them that few receivers can match.

 

[PROJECT 2501]

I would have to agree.



Having owned and sold Marantz receivers in the 70s I have listened to them. Got a 4270 free from a customer. Like the 4300 its a beast!! Just under 50 lbs. Thought it was toast as the customer said his kid blew it up. He wrecked the speakers, not the Marantz Rebulbed it. Needs the pointer light and an Fm light. The FM light looks horrible to replace.

As far as sound, I agree it sounds like a two channel. My shop setup has 4 speakers so it running in 4 channel. The sound is very good. FM is close to my Pioneer TX9100 tuner. My 4270 was free. Currently its my bench amp. Dont know if I will keep it. but for now it the shop amp. Fun to listen to. Got a Dual 1009,TEAC 1250 reel to reel, TEAC 450 cassette, and Pionner TX 7100. Got 4 tuners two need to go. Like the Marantz, the Pioneer TX 7100 cleaned up nicely.

Hope this helps. A good sounding set. They do have a lot of circuits under the hood makeing it hard to get at things. Beware of this. Good luck.

Eric two headphones for quad

LoL
WTF?

 

[SaturationPt]

Zombie thread alert.

 

[Skypilot007]

I would like to revive this thread if anyone out there would like to get back in on a discussion on the 4300. I have one which I need to get restored and need to know more about it.

 

[soundguy9]

Did you restore your 4300? I am considering a unit today.

 

[ColonelKurtz]

I have a chance at a good deal on one this coming week. I have a 2325 and a 4400 and even though I have just completely restored every board on my 2325, filter caps, lights, etc etc... I swear this unrestored (save for the power board, scope board, and left amp board) 4400 sounds the same as the 2325! Just debating on whether or not to get the 4300, restore it all the way, then sell it...

 

[soundguy9]

The 4000 series are not as popular so it may not be as much worth as a recapped 2325, etc.
I really like the sound from my 2220B unit. So much so that I could not swap it out to recap the Power Supply and Phono inputs. I found a good working Yamaha M-45 this past week and found the sound really good in Class A operation. So it replaced the 2220B while I am recapping it.

 

[stereofisher]

I have a chance at a good deal on one this coming week. I have a 2325 and a 4400 and even though I have just completely restored every board on my 2325, filter caps, lights, etc etc... I swear this unrestored (save for the power board, scope board, and left amp board) 4400 sounds the same as the 2325! Just debating on whether or not to get the 4300, restore it all the way, then sell it...

There are people who like four channel receivers. I would fix that 4300. Retired my free 4270. Now running low powered Marantz receivers. Always thought four channel receivers were cool. Found a nice 4415 quad. Have in my work room. Only 15 watts times 4. Have three Dual tables using a DAK 2800 mixer for two and phono for the third. The two channels may be more popular. As said there are people like me who like four channels. Have two other systems using a 2010 and a 2220B. You have a gift that you can service them. wish I did. Know Duals. Maybe that why I have 7. Good luck on the rebuild.

 

[stereofisher]

The 4000 series are not as popular so it may not be as much worth as a recapped 2325, etc.
I really like the sound from my 2220B unit. So much so that I could not swap it out to recap the Power Supply and Phono inputs. I found a good working Yamaha M-45 this past week and found the sound really good in Class A operation. So it replaced the 2220B while I am recapping it.

Have a 2220B. I think you will like it recapped. Mine was recapped. Replaced a 2270. Found I didn’t need all that power. Now it’s biggest receiver I have Is the 2220B. Liking the sound on low powered receivers.

 

[ColonelKurtz]

Have a 2220B. I think you will like it recapped. Mine was recapped. Replaced a 2270. Found I didn’t need all that power. Now it’s biggest receiver I have Is the 2220B. Liking the sound on low powered receivers.

I have a 2220B that sounds as good as any of them, imo... but turning up the volume to 12 noon to get medium level volume is rather lacking, for my needs. Will always keep the 2220B as backup, though.

 

[soundguy9]

The racapping was going well till I realized that some of the Nichicon caps were bi-polar. I am waiting for the replacement caps now.

 

[soundguy9]

I have a 2220B that sounds as good as any of them, imo... but turning up the volume to 12 noon to get medium level volume is rather lacking, for my needs. Will always keep the 2220B as backup, though.

I did not have that experience with my 2220B. The sound is loud and clear to the 12 position and my ears couldn’t take it anymore after that so I didn’t go any higher with the volume.

The 2220B is the only marantz experience that I ever had. I don’t even know why I would need a higher power receiver! I have it connected to Sony ss-g5s and JBL CF120s and I could only bare the volume to the 12 position. There is no distortion, just excellent sound.