Most Underrated/Overrated Component or Brand
- Thread starter Marantzaholic
- Start date
reggaenaut
Addicted Member
:yes:
Vistance
Super Member
Third-ed - I have a Beogram RX with the MMC5 and I really like it (Honestly don't see what a more expensive needle on this TT would do me - I paid $30 for the TT with the cartridge
). I don't see how B&O made a bad turntable - in fact thanks to their design I was able to use one with my system (Didn't have room for my monster Pioneer PL-71). The proprietary cartridges are a negative point, but I'm not really complaining.
Last edited:
fitshoeman
35 yrs in this hobby
Underated is definitely Kyocera. but it is hard to find. It can usually be bought for a very reasnable price because peo[ple don't know much about it.
Overated - all the new stuff!
Overated - all the new stuff!
Hmmm. Yes I had an SCA 80 (not Q) linked to Realistic 1B's and it kicked butt. Well matched in wattage. Maybe it was just one of those "correct" matches where it just sounded right. The SCA 80 is typically trashed by most people. I paid $45 used in 76 and it lasted about 15 years. Can't complain.
most overrated
sansui au-999 (for the money they go for now)
underrated
vector research vrx-9000
kenwood ka-7100
teac as-100
teac bx-550
all 3 above are excellent value for money and sound awesome.
sansui au-999 (for the money they go for now)
underrated
vector research vrx-9000
kenwood ka-7100
teac as-100
teac bx-550
all 3 above are excellent value for money and sound awesome.
Most overrated
Yorx
Sound Design
Airline (SS)
Sony
Anything sold as STERIO or stero on craigslist
It all just so cheaply made and sounds really craptacular
and oh yeah... Bose
I got a Bose wave radio for $1.00 and at that price it sounds ok to listen to coast to coast late at night
Macintosh gear is over-rated until you get a smoking deal on it , then its AWESOME
If its got vinyl coated plywood, yeeeuchkk
Yorx
Sound Design
Airline (SS)
Sony
Anything sold as STERIO or stero on craigslist
It all just so cheaply made and sounds really craptacular
and oh yeah... Bose
I got a Bose wave radio for $1.00 and at that price it sounds ok to listen to coast to coast late at night
Macintosh gear is over-rated until you get a smoking deal on it , then its AWESOME
If its got vinyl coated plywood, yeeeuchkk
Cogsinister
Super Member
Stero....LOL..
nucleus76
Member
Underrated:
Onkyo. They made some great sounding dual mono amps back in the '70s and 80's. I have one and LOVE it!
Technics. They had some damn fine receivers back in the day that would hang with the best of them.
Overratted:
Bose for sure.
Linn (putting fire suit on!) turntables.
I know people love these. Sometimes more than their children but a good friend recently had me restore and sell his Sondek LP-12. I tore it down completely, restored all the internal rubber bits, cleaned and de-oxidized all electrical components, and spent about 4 hours meticulously setting up the suspension. It sounded really nice. No doubt about that, but the overall construction and engineering...definitely did not seem (TO ME) like $1000.00+ worth of turntable.
Onkyo. They made some great sounding dual mono amps back in the '70s and 80's. I have one and LOVE it!
Technics. They had some damn fine receivers back in the day that would hang with the best of them.
Overratted:
Bose for sure.
Linn (putting fire suit on!) turntables.
I know people love these. Sometimes more than their children but a good friend recently had me restore and sell his Sondek LP-12. I tore it down completely, restored all the internal rubber bits, cleaned and de-oxidized all electrical components, and spent about 4 hours meticulously setting up the suspension. It sounded really nice. No doubt about that, but the overall construction and engineering...definitely did not seem (TO ME) like $1000.00+ worth of turntable.
backinthelou
Well-Known Member
Over-rated
ioneer, Onkyo and Yamaha
Under-rated: MCS, Realistic
I think that what most people should realize is that just because a person has something non-favorable about a certain brand, doesn't mean that it is "over-rated" or "under-rated".
Almost EVERY peice of Pioneer equipment I have come in contact with needed work-alot of work, and I have owned alot of Pioneer equipment. I love Marantz and Sansui, and regardless of what a few people have said, I don't think that they are generally regarded as over-rated. Pioneer on the other hand is overwhelmingly thought highly of, and myself I believe is exceptionally over rated.
ioneer, Onkyo and YamahaUnder-rated: MCS, Realistic
I think that what most people should realize is that just because a person has something non-favorable about a certain brand, doesn't mean that it is "over-rated" or "under-rated".
Almost EVERY peice of Pioneer equipment I have come in contact with needed work-alot of work, and I have owned alot of Pioneer equipment. I love Marantz and Sansui, and regardless of what a few people have said, I don't think that they are generally regarded as over-rated. Pioneer on the other hand is overwhelmingly thought highly of, and myself I believe is exceptionally over rated.
Zingem
Active Member
Overrated: I think most megabuck cartridgebrands, except Ortofon, which is unerrated. Because of the quality of their cartridges and tonearms (my SMG-212 was made decades ago and still plays so well).
The Danish brand also did more than any other brand for the survival of vinyl.
Brands like Clearaudio on the other hand are way overpriced. So are some of the hi end cable manufacturers imho
The Danish brand also did more than any other brand for the survival of vinyl.
Brands like Clearaudio on the other hand are way overpriced. So are some of the hi end cable manufacturers imho
Bose overrated?
I don't know what everyone means when they say Bose is overrated, because I see VERY few people touting its merits. I would have to say that it is, generally speaking, not highly rated equipment.
Now, if "overrated" means "overpriced," maybe that's a different story. But we should draw a distinct between how the market rates something and how audiophiles rate something. Or is that too fine a line?
I don't know what everyone means when they say Bose is overrated, because I see VERY few people touting its merits. I would have to say that it is, generally speaking, not highly rated equipment.
Now, if "overrated" means "overpriced," maybe that's a different story. But we should draw a distinct between how the market rates something and how audiophiles rate something. Or is that too fine a line?
Gang-Twanger
Resident Wharfedaliophool
Shain, I've owned every Marantz o'scope tuner including the original model 10 and even back to the Marantz faceplated Fisher except the ST and 2xxx series tuner (of which I've auditioned the 2130). Also, owned several of the 70s non scope tuners. While all were nice none were so outstanding that they were worth keeping including the 10 and 10b. A Scott 4310 outperformed them both.
As for experience with the Marantz line well, I started my affair with the tube line when I met Saul in NY and we had lunch. A nice pair of model 1s and 5s were my first venture, a trade with Saul for my Quad system that he wanted to play with. From there I picked up about every unit Saul put out save the electronic crossover. My largest system included 3 sets of KLH Nines being run by 6 Model 9s (in triode mode), a 7C, 10b, a Scott 4310, a pair of Marantz SLT-12U tables and a pair of Crown reel to reels. At that time Frank would ship me Mc amps/preamps and especially the tuners to try. I'd hook them up, try the stuff, laugh package it up and send it back to Frank with regards. Frank, Avery, Saul and myself enjoyed more than a few nights a George Colt's home, having dinner, a good cigar and doing shootouts of each companys' gear. Surprisingly Scott was more the company to beat than either of the others in terms of absolute sound quality. With the switch to ss Saul tried to compete with Frank while Frank competed with only his tube units. By that time Avery did not have the capital to stay head to head with Mc and did not find the backers that Saul (to his misfortune) found so he settle on on last shoot with the 4312 and moved to try to fill a niche above Fisher and below Mc and Marantz without realizing there really was no such niche and soon Marantz would follow. The early ss from both Saul and Frank sounded vastly different than their respective tube series and Frank was not happy until he got the ss to sound close to the Mc tube sound. Saul under pressure from his backers had to produce a line of ss equipment and at best could only try to come up with better sounding ss than most others. Saul would have liked to continue with tubes but, his backers would not hear of it. As a Marantz dealer at that time it was wonderful to see what Saul and the others were doing and of the 3 lines was a Marantz dealer the longest. The 20 was at the time was the best sounding ss tuner out and when it and the 20b were replaced by the 125 (early series) it was amazing how bad the 125 was in comparison. The late series 125 came close to the 20b but still not quite as good. The 150 had such quality control problems that many we sold were traded back and at best sounded somewhere between the early and late 125. I had until the late 70s a 10b, 20, 20b and late 125 in system as my standards and compared many other tuners to them. When the MR77 came out, it sonically was better than all but the 10b. The 20 came close and better the 77 on strong local stations which was what it was designed to do best with but, the 77 took over on everything else. The non scope Marantz tuners of the time were good but nothing outstanding and when any of the competitiors had half a marketing itch they came out with better product. However, Marantz tended to be a bit more consistent in product development while all the while trying to beat out the old Marantz image that continued to dog them and make market share.
As for the 18 and 19 being mid-market, I'd dispute that. These units at the time were Rolls Royces of receivers. Remember the time period and what was out there. Most of the stuff at the time of the 18 was totally harsh, unstable and at best fried itself to death. Saul was the first to make a high quality ss receiver that could be appreciated by the high-end market and no other company could do it. Avery was not into that market preferring the moneied martini crowd had had sold his tube line to and Frank had more distain for people who wanted a receiver than you could believe. The units showed that people could and would pay big money for what had previously been considered only a compromise system for those who could not afford real systems. Sonically, are they competitive against later generations? As tuners, yes but, as receivers, it is questionable they warrant main system status. Many are finding them to be perfect for early vintage ss systems with similar period speakers, etc. This is a somewhat different group than those interested in the power war period receivers or those who like to mix and match. It is not my cup of tea but I'd like to hook up a nice set of Warfedale WD60s or 70 to an 18 and recreate that sound once in a while . They do have less veil than I found with the 2xxx series which were designed by a team from Sony and Marantz while the earlier 2x series was put together with Standard Radio of Japan. Like Sony, of the period some stuff was rather good and some models not worthy of the names. The American designed amps and preamps were not stellar in comparison to competing product (well, save for the little model 500). The preamps were the big weak point noisy to begin with and prone to increasing noise levels faster than most of the competition, partially due to the sliders used. Given that, they were reliable as was the amps.
As for the big dogs - the 2500 and 2600. Truly IMHO the top of the big babies and amazing feats of engineering. They are probably the real succesor to the 18 and 19 and should be the grail for those who loved what the 18 and 19 represented.
Well, enough said. As for my experience with Marantz, Shain. I can't say I have a house full of them now but, for years I had everything offered and about $150,000 worth of the stuff in my warehouse. As to how they've stood the test of ages, you'd be the better judge since you've accepted the mantra of keeping the margue as your specialty. Few persons have that dedication it seems and I've only recently gotten the bug to do a similar thing with a limited line of Philips.
Reading this thread from the beginning.... Great thread.... I especially-loved the preceding quote from Brian. That was great. Never doubt the experience of an experienced professional.:thmbsp: .... Brian's knowledgable advice saved me a lot of time and money by pointing me in the right direction for the type of sound I was after, and now I have a vintage system I can be proud of for many years to come (Not that I'm done hunting for vintage deals or anything - There's ALWAYS room for improvement).
Overrated? Bose obviously. Post-'70's Harmon Kardon absolutely. Perhaps Marantz and Pioneer in regards to price vs sound-quality. But the name that quickly-comes to mind is NAD. I've never been terribly-thrilled with the NAD gear I tried in various home-audio dealers, but on the recommendation of a Steve Hoffman forum-member, I decided to go with their early '80's Taiwanese-manufactured 3140 integrated, which was supposed to be so-good for the money. Seems to be well-built enough (I think most of the money went into the power-supply section because one side of the unit is much-heavier than the other), but I found it to be dead and lifeless, and not worth the $90 I paid for it. Perhaps with the right speakers. People seem to like them, but it did nothing for me except clue me into the fact that the early '80's "accurate sound" was not for me (Did me a big favor actually).
As for underrated, I would have to agree with Brian about low-powered receivers/amps in general (at least the few I've owned). Besides, it works for me because I can't afford a lot of those big-daddy receivers anyway. Anyhow, it seems to me that the warmest, sweetest, most-musical, emotion-conveying receivers were the earliest ones from the late '60's/early '70's. As far as underrated receivers go, Sherwood instantly-comes to mind. Their early '70's receivers are great. I've been hearing great things about vintage ADS speakers, which would make sense because their car-audio separates were amazing (and not overpriced IMO - Most-vibrant, natural, and lifelike component-speakers I've ever heard for the money). Regarding McIntosh, I don't own any of their home receivers/amps, however, I have had experience with their '90's car-audio stuff, and I found their lower-powered amps to be better/sweeter-sounding than the higher-powered ones. I used to run their 100wx2 amps as well as the much-smaller 30wx2 model, and I found the 30wx2 to be noticably-sweeter and more-musical. Perhaps this is just the way it is with lower vs higher-powered gear in general. I really-don't know.
I also have to include Wharfedale's acoustic-suspension-era 'W' models. In the case of the W60 in particular, it seems that the best ones were the sealed versions (in part because of a switch to a 3-way design, I think - The W60E's reproduce the human voice as well or better than any speaker I've heard), but not many people seem to notice this. Hey, good for me. I'll just keep picking them up cheap and powering them with sweet-sounding lower-powered gear.
Last edited:
sallyandjeff
New Member
ohm accustic prototypes
i have prototype ohms called super 5 very big from 1990's
i have prototype ohms called super 5 very big from 1990's
ukfan4sure!
Expert Smoke Releaser
I'll drum up the past....
Ok...
So I've read about every post in here....
I agree and disagree with some.
Underrated? The early Pioneer. Perhaps it's the looks of the units that drive people away (let's face it, the controls aren't very pretty). I had an SX-6000 that was so warm and beautiful sounding. The SX-1010 was about the same, but not all that more impressive for it's pricing. I picked up an SX-737 one time and it was beautiful sounding also.
The early Sansui's. Same reasoning as the Pioneer's. Ugly. But beautiful to the ear.
I once bought a bunch of gear at once. Probably about 10 grand worth at 25-35 dollars a pop. Yeah, I had my basement full. I once hooked up all of the following and auditioned them with my Bozak speakers:
Pioneer SX-950
Marantz 2285B and 2275
Sansui G-8000 and G8700
Technics SA-8900 (I think that was the model; real glitzy) and SA-500
For pure sound, the Marantz 2285B smoked them all. And I could have cared less about the outcome, I'm not brand loyal. I was totally unbiased with my eyes closed and listened to jazz, some Kansas (Dust in the Wind is awesome in a shootout), Journey, and even some Big Band Sinatra (stereo).
The Pioneer SX-950 while very powerful and punchy, was not all that impressive. I found the tone control all the way up trying to reach highs that the Marantz just yawned at. I wish everyone could try a shootout listening to cymbals. It's a very stark comparison.
Suprisingly, the G8000 was pretty good also. But, musically, it seemed muddy in the midrange. And if pure kick-ass was your motive, it really rocked! I hooked up some Sansui SP-9900's and it was like a rock concert. Still, for pure music at a decent volume, it was just so-so.
That's my take on what I've owned. Give me a 22 series Marantz (early or blue-light later), and I'm happy. An early Pioneer SX is very warm sounding. Almost tube like.
For beauty, it's hard to argue with a 75-79 Pioneer SX. They are gorgeous and the tactile feel of the controls is stellar!
Now I know there could have been some issues with Caps going south on some of the equipment, so I'll agree with anyone that would argue their points here. I'm just putting my two cents in.
Ok...
So I've read about every post in here....
I agree and disagree with some.
Underrated? The early Pioneer. Perhaps it's the looks of the units that drive people away (let's face it, the controls aren't very pretty). I had an SX-6000 that was so warm and beautiful sounding. The SX-1010 was about the same, but not all that more impressive for it's pricing. I picked up an SX-737 one time and it was beautiful sounding also.
The early Sansui's. Same reasoning as the Pioneer's. Ugly. But beautiful to the ear.
I once bought a bunch of gear at once. Probably about 10 grand worth at 25-35 dollars a pop. Yeah, I had my basement full. I once hooked up all of the following and auditioned them with my Bozak speakers:
Pioneer SX-950
Marantz 2285B and 2275
Sansui G-8000 and G8700
Technics SA-8900 (I think that was the model; real glitzy) and SA-500
For pure sound, the Marantz 2285B smoked them all. And I could have cared less about the outcome, I'm not brand loyal. I was totally unbiased with my eyes closed and listened to jazz, some Kansas (Dust in the Wind is awesome in a shootout), Journey, and even some Big Band Sinatra (stereo).
The Pioneer SX-950 while very powerful and punchy, was not all that impressive. I found the tone control all the way up trying to reach highs that the Marantz just yawned at. I wish everyone could try a shootout listening to cymbals. It's a very stark comparison.
Suprisingly, the G8000 was pretty good also. But, musically, it seemed muddy in the midrange. And if pure kick-ass was your motive, it really rocked! I hooked up some Sansui SP-9900's and it was like a rock concert. Still, for pure music at a decent volume, it was just so-so.
That's my take on what I've owned. Give me a 22 series Marantz (early or blue-light later), and I'm happy. An early Pioneer SX is very warm sounding. Almost tube like.
For beauty, it's hard to argue with a 75-79 Pioneer SX. They are gorgeous and the tactile feel of the controls is stellar!
Now I know there could have been some issues with Caps going south on some of the equipment, so I'll agree with anyone that would argue their points here. I'm just putting my two cents in.
