Most Underrated/Overrated Component or Brand
- Thread starter Marantzaholic
- Start date
What are ya smokin Brian... McIntosh "underated"???
Insert McIntosh in that, instead of Marantz, and ya got why I said what I did about the Mac stuff.
I've had several of the Mac receivers, and they were not better preforming than a Marantz, Pioneer, or Sansui for 1/3 the price.
Mac is good gear, but not superior, considering the inflated price.
Insert McIntosh in that, instead of Marantz, and ya got why I said what I did about the Mac stuff.
I've had several of the Mac receivers, and they were not better preforming than a Marantz, Pioneer, or Sansui for 1/3 the price.
Mac is good gear, but not superior, considering the inflated price.
Most over-rated ?
Quad.
Their vintage SS amplifiers were nastily made, underpowered, horrid devices that sucked the life out of music.
Include the 405 series from the 80's as well.
What a POS !
Low quality components, poor current drive, inability to drive any load that deviated from a flat 8 ohms. It didn't even sound good with Quad ESl speakers.
The only bright spot was that it took a guy like Steve Mc Cormack to make the design work with his Mac Mod 405 stereo and mono modifications.
Can I also include the original ESL57 electrostatic ?
Back in the 50s/60s it was revolutionary.
Now it's just another compromised speaker.
There is a beautiful midrange that is still hard, but not impossible to beat, coupled to wimpy bass, truncated highs, so-so imaging and soundstaging.
End result a real curate's egg that isn't my cup of tea.
Give me a mint pair of the similar looking Dahlquist DQ-10s instead.
cheerio
Quad.
Their vintage SS amplifiers were nastily made, underpowered, horrid devices that sucked the life out of music.
Include the 405 series from the 80's as well.
What a POS !
Low quality components, poor current drive, inability to drive any load that deviated from a flat 8 ohms. It didn't even sound good with Quad ESl speakers.
The only bright spot was that it took a guy like Steve Mc Cormack to make the design work with his Mac Mod 405 stereo and mono modifications.
Can I also include the original ESL57 electrostatic ?
Back in the 50s/60s it was revolutionary.
Now it's just another compromised speaker.
There is a beautiful midrange that is still hard, but not impossible to beat, coupled to wimpy bass, truncated highs, so-so imaging and soundstaging.
End result a real curate's egg that isn't my cup of tea.
Give me a mint pair of the similar looking Dahlquist DQ-10s instead.
cheerio
Last edited:
Kenwood fan here!
I have to agree on the build quality. My main system right now is a Kenwood KA-4004 driving Large Advents. This thing must have spent time in a garage because the case was FULL of motor oil and, although I have cleaned as much as possible, it still smells slightly of it when it gets warm. It plays just beautifully even though I have to have it on a stack of newspapers to catch the seepage.
This unit should by all rights not work at all and it is still pumping out beautiful sound.
I just got a KA-5500 that might replace it. We'll see . . . .
I have to agree on the build quality. My main system right now is a Kenwood KA-4004 driving Large Advents. This thing must have spent time in a garage because the case was FULL of motor oil and, although I have cleaned as much as possible, it still smells slightly of it when it gets warm. It plays just beautifully even though I have to have it on a stack of newspapers to catch the seepage.
This unit should by all rights not work at all and it is still pumping out beautiful sound.
I just got a KA-5500 that might replace it. We'll see . . . .
Bill
Active Member
Most overrated: Marantz XXXX series, I have owned Marantz separates and I don't think they were any better than many other brands than can be had at much lower prices.
Most underrated: Sanyo and MCS that were made in the late 70's. I own both TOTL receivers from Sanyo and MCS and IMO are equal to about any of the more popular brands of the era of the same power rating.
My 2 cents
Bill
Most underrated: Sanyo and MCS that were made in the late 70's. I own both TOTL receivers from Sanyo and MCS and IMO are equal to about any of the more popular brands of the era of the same power rating.
My 2 cents
Bill
Brian
An Old Geezer
Shain,
Have you read any posts where I proffered that a Mc receiver was TOTL? I've always maintained they were not afforded the development budget or receivers thought of by Frank as worthy as "real" audio components. I do find the receivers enjoyable but nothing to get worked up about though the 1700 tuner is pretty nice sounding when the unit is used only as a tuner. The receivers make for good office/study systems but not on my hotlist for main or second level systems. I'd take a Marantz 18 or 19 for those systems but that's it from the Marantz line. The rest are no better than the Mc receivers and most are worse. I will admit that I'm not an admirer of receivers in general - too many compromises.
Mc, IMHO, does not have inflated prices but, less depreciation. I'll never understand how a Marantz receiver we sold for something like $260 new is fetching more than that today. Now that's inflated. The units are no better today than they were then. I think we all recognize that there is a reasonable level in terms of sound and quality that can be acheived for X$s. To reached increasingly higher levels of either takes larger $s for ever increasingly smaller increases. We each have a somewhat different concept of that base line. For some it is a (I'm leaving out those once in a life-time buys at $5) system that maybe costs $500 (a pair of Advents for $150, H-K 930 for say another $150, turntable for another $75 and $125 for cartridge). Others of us (or at least me) grew up with a different level of equipment and most of our lives was spent with a higher sound quality system so our standards are different. I picked the above system since my next door neighbor has it and loves it. When he heard me system, he shrugged and thought it was no better. For him everything I own is over rated. I listen to his system and it is a nice den system for kicking back and listening to while reading but not much more. It has a veil that after 5 minutes I find very disurbing if I listen to it with any dedication. To me his system is over rated since I'd not spend anything like $500 for that sound.
I know persons though, I was not expecting you so much since you deal with Marantz, to comment would comment trying to figure out why McIntosh which even the bottom rung stuff in poor condition starts where most equipments stops in terms of value (whoops price) would be underrated in my view. My comparisons are against the likes of ARC and Krell, etc. rather than Pioneer, JVC, Sony, etc. In this range, the Mcs are under rated.
As for the tuner comparitive. Mcs do not have the specs of so many "hot" tuners but, do have that unigue ability to convey the music that so many units don't. Sort of like comparing an accomplished musician against someone who can pick up an instrument, read music and play every note perfectly. What's the difference - feeling or emotion. Too much out there plays the music but can't convey the feeling. For another look at this which you may be able to perform from you Marantz inventory. Listen to the 20 and 20b tuner. Both the same circuits save the front end. The 20b was made for those wanting hot specs and the 20 lacks. On close listening on both, well at least when both were new which was when I did this, the 20 conveys this emotion well while the 20b did somewhat but noticably less well. Many persons don't find this lack of emotion troublesome while I find it particularly so on FM since it has so many other problems as a souce.
Have you read any posts where I proffered that a Mc receiver was TOTL? I've always maintained they were not afforded the development budget or receivers thought of by Frank as worthy as "real" audio components. I do find the receivers enjoyable but nothing to get worked up about though the 1700 tuner is pretty nice sounding when the unit is used only as a tuner. The receivers make for good office/study systems but not on my hotlist for main or second level systems. I'd take a Marantz 18 or 19 for those systems but that's it from the Marantz line. The rest are no better than the Mc receivers and most are worse. I will admit that I'm not an admirer of receivers in general - too many compromises.
Mc, IMHO, does not have inflated prices but, less depreciation. I'll never understand how a Marantz receiver we sold for something like $260 new is fetching more than that today. Now that's inflated. The units are no better today than they were then. I think we all recognize that there is a reasonable level in terms of sound and quality that can be acheived for X$s. To reached increasingly higher levels of either takes larger $s for ever increasingly smaller increases. We each have a somewhat different concept of that base line. For some it is a (I'm leaving out those once in a life-time buys at $5) system that maybe costs $500 (a pair of Advents for $150, H-K 930 for say another $150, turntable for another $75 and $125 for cartridge). Others of us (or at least me) grew up with a different level of equipment and most of our lives was spent with a higher sound quality system so our standards are different. I picked the above system since my next door neighbor has it and loves it. When he heard me system, he shrugged and thought it was no better. For him everything I own is over rated. I listen to his system and it is a nice den system for kicking back and listening to while reading but not much more. It has a veil that after 5 minutes I find very disurbing if I listen to it with any dedication. To me his system is over rated since I'd not spend anything like $500 for that sound.
I know persons though, I was not expecting you so much since you deal with Marantz, to comment would comment trying to figure out why McIntosh which even the bottom rung stuff in poor condition starts where most equipments stops in terms of value (whoops price) would be underrated in my view. My comparisons are against the likes of ARC and Krell, etc. rather than Pioneer, JVC, Sony, etc. In this range, the Mcs are under rated.
As for the tuner comparitive. Mcs do not have the specs of so many "hot" tuners but, do have that unigue ability to convey the music that so many units don't. Sort of like comparing an accomplished musician against someone who can pick up an instrument, read music and play every note perfectly. What's the difference - feeling or emotion. Too much out there plays the music but can't convey the feeling. For another look at this which you may be able to perform from you Marantz inventory. Listen to the 20 and 20b tuner. Both the same circuits save the front end. The 20b was made for those wanting hot specs and the 20 lacks. On close listening on both, well at least when both were new which was when I did this, the 20 conveys this emotion well while the 20b did somewhat but noticably less well. Many persons don't find this lack of emotion troublesome while I find it particularly so on FM since it has so many other problems as a souce.
Last edited:
jerrymrc
Spaz!
Underated, Realistic,MCS. Overated, Marantz? Ever remember that when you cranked your 2270 up that the tweeters on your Advents went Bye,Bye??? I did. Overated, Technics amps of the 80's Had an SU-V8 Thought it was nice at the time but since i had changed speakers did not notice until 6 years later when i replaced it.
No one here has said anything about Tape decks???? Underated:
Pioneer 8-track with dolby. I made some recordings a couple of years ago for one of my old cars and the sound was shocking
compaired to pre-recorded tapes. Have played a few recordings for people and they do not believe it is an 8-Track.
No one here has said anything about Tape decks???? Underated:
Pioneer 8-track with dolby. I made some recordings a couple of years ago for one of my old cars and the sound was shocking
compaired to pre-recorded tapes. Have played a few recordings for people and they do not believe it is an 8-Track.
merrylander
AK Member
I will go with the Yamaha CR-series as being underrated. My main system is a CR-820 driving Polk Model 7s, they called it "Natural Sound" but I call it transparent, nothing added, nothing taken away.
When this one came my way one channel was dead. Close visual inspection showed that someone had played with the volume control - took the cover off and the wiper was missing! Replaced the control with one from a CR-620 parts unit and it has been playing ever since. Of course I did all the necessay adjustments before putting it in service. Easy to work on.
Now I have a Marantz Model 27 in the shop that has a wood case and a spotless faceplate. Unfortunately some ham fisted clown got to the innards before I got it - needs a new power amp module and voltage reg board - seems some techs still use 250 watt Weller soldering guns.
Also have a 2250B to restore and that will be my last Marantz, I'd rather get a root canal than work on those units. As to the "warm" sound, I prefer transparent sound.
Rob
When this one came my way one channel was dead. Close visual inspection showed that someone had played with the volume control - took the cover off and the wiper was missing! Replaced the control with one from a CR-620 parts unit and it has been playing ever since. Of course I did all the necessay adjustments before putting it in service. Easy to work on.
Now I have a Marantz Model 27 in the shop that has a wood case and a spotless faceplate. Unfortunately some ham fisted clown got to the innards before I got it - needs a new power amp module and voltage reg board - seems some techs still use 250 watt Weller soldering guns.
Also have a 2250B to restore and that will be my last Marantz, I'd rather get a root canal than work on those units. As to the "warm" sound, I prefer transparent sound.
Rob
Lefty
Super Member
"No one here has said anything about Tape decks???? Underated:
Pioneer 8-track with dolby. I made some recordings a couple of years ago for one of my old cars and the sound was shocking
compaired to pre-recorded tapes. Have played a few recordings for people and they do not believe it is an 8-Track."
I also have a Pioneer HR-100 dolby 8 track deck and indeed it does have pretty good sound compared to normal 8 track. I have even found a few 8 track commercial carts that were encoded with Dolby. I would say the sound quality is equal to a good FM station which is quite a bit better then standard 8 track tapes.
Lefty
Pioneer 8-track with dolby. I made some recordings a couple of years ago for one of my old cars and the sound was shocking
compaired to pre-recorded tapes. Have played a few recordings for people and they do not believe it is an 8-Track."
I also have a Pioneer HR-100 dolby 8 track deck and indeed it does have pretty good sound compared to normal 8 track. I have even found a few 8 track commercial carts that were encoded with Dolby. I would say the sound quality is equal to a good FM station which is quite a bit better then standard 8 track tapes.
Lefty
merrylander
AK Member
No expert on tape decks, I have an old Panasonic RS-755S that underwhelmed me when I played pre-recorded tapes until I put new Nortronics heads in it - now it is much better. But then someone gave me a Teac 1230 and the 755S is sitting idle.
Rob
Rob
Per Brain:
The thing about your comparisons of the Marantz tuners, is you have picked ones that are at best mid level quality.
They may be near the Mac's level, .....but neither are superior analog tuners, Marantz, Mac or otherwise.
There are several Marantz tuners (and receivers), that are far superior to the 20 or 20B. I don't have either one of the two, because of that fact.
And the same is true for the 18 or 19 Marantz receivers, they also aren't any more than a mid line unit. I've owned just about every piece made by Marantz.
You must not have much experience with the Marantz line, to mention the units you have, as a basis for commenting on the quality of vintage gear. They are well known, to not be the best Marantz offered.
And your right, the vintage Marantz gear does enjoy a healty market. And they do bring $$ in the area of original selling price.
Must be some reason for the popularity??, ......and it's actually rising now.
Anyway, everyone has their own preferences. What I like someone else may not, and vise versa. That's why there is more than one brand of about everything man has created in the last 100 years.
...... all in all it really dosen't matter what anyone else prefers, just get what you like.
The thing about your comparisons of the Marantz tuners, is you have picked ones that are at best mid level quality.
They may be near the Mac's level, .....but neither are superior analog tuners, Marantz, Mac or otherwise.
There are several Marantz tuners (and receivers), that are far superior to the 20 or 20B. I don't have either one of the two, because of that fact.
And the same is true for the 18 or 19 Marantz receivers, they also aren't any more than a mid line unit. I've owned just about every piece made by Marantz.
You must not have much experience with the Marantz line, to mention the units you have, as a basis for commenting on the quality of vintage gear. They are well known, to not be the best Marantz offered.
And your right, the vintage Marantz gear does enjoy a healty market. And they do bring $$ in the area of original selling price.
Must be some reason for the popularity??, ......and it's actually rising now.
Anyway, everyone has their own preferences. What I like someone else may not, and vise versa. That's why there is more than one brand of about everything man has created in the last 100 years.
...... all in all it really dosen't matter what anyone else prefers, just get what you like.
Brian
An Old Geezer
Long response to Shain
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.
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.
botrytis, you might want to look at this accessory for the Mitsu Amp
I remember my old Post-Grad Roomate having this series of amplifiers (see sellers other post regarding an A7DC amp for sale, I believe looks like yours too. Anyway, the amps had this docking meter system with controls on it. Price is up there but is very unique setup. Thought you might like to know.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3032545019&category=39783
Regards,
Bart
I remember my old Post-Grad Roomate having this series of amplifiers (see sellers other post regarding an A7DC amp for sale, I believe looks like yours too. Anyway, the amps had this docking meter system with controls on it. Price is up there but is very unique setup. Thought you might like to know.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3032545019&category=39783
Regards,
Bart
Brian, you again mention Marantz tuners like the 125. The 125 by any known criteria, are not even close to the best that Marantz made in the 70's.
For some reason, ......You bearly mention the 2130 (I have two), or make any comment on the tuner.
Or mention the Esotec tuners (I have 2 also), which are elctronically nearly the same as the 2130.
The superiorty of the 2130, 2140, and the Esotecs is pretty easy to grasp.
They are far, far superior to the 10B, 20, 20B, 125, 18 or 19 receivers.
Iv'e had 4 or 5 of the 10B's, and don't use one in my personal system, because they don't preform anything like a 2130 or Esotec.
The 2275, 2325, 2330, 2385, 2330B, 2500 recievers, plus several more, are all far better recievers, with better tuners, than an 18 or 19.
The 18 and 19 were nice, and TOTL for a year or two, but you have to ignor all those listed above to think they were anything but mid level equipment from Marantz in the 70's
Apparently you stopped coming in contact the later Marantz tuners, when they made their best SS equipment.
That's really is the time when alot of the best Marantz SS stuff was being produced.
That's just the way I see it, my two cents worth...
And I don't have a house full of Marantz equipment because they sell too fast.
For some reason, ......You bearly mention the 2130 (I have two), or make any comment on the tuner.
Or mention the Esotec tuners (I have 2 also), which are elctronically nearly the same as the 2130.
The superiorty of the 2130, 2140, and the Esotecs is pretty easy to grasp.
They are far, far superior to the 10B, 20, 20B, 125, 18 or 19 receivers.
Iv'e had 4 or 5 of the 10B's, and don't use one in my personal system, because they don't preform anything like a 2130 or Esotec.
The 2275, 2325, 2330, 2385, 2330B, 2500 recievers, plus several more, are all far better recievers, with better tuners, than an 18 or 19.
The 18 and 19 were nice, and TOTL for a year or two, but you have to ignor all those listed above to think they were anything but mid level equipment from Marantz in the 70's
Apparently you stopped coming in contact the later Marantz tuners, when they made their best SS equipment.
That's really is the time when alot of the best Marantz SS stuff was being produced.
That's just the way I see it, my two cents worth...
And I don't have a house full of Marantz equipment because they sell too fast.
Brian
An Old Geezer
I've never had a chance to try the Esotec though I've seen the power amp and integrated sans covers and was not impressed with the build quality. They were in repair so never heard them. The 2130 I tried did not come near my MR77 sonically. It had come from a trusted shop that represented it had been gone through. I didn't not have any other Marantz tuners to knock it up against but some years ago had compared the 77 to units and it walked all over them in terms of sound. Remember I am saying sound - music quality only. The 2130 in terms of quieting, sensitivity, selectivity did better as did the earlier tuners but for me the only meaningful measurement ultimately is that of the ability to deliver the music. Admittedly, I only listen critically to a few stations and they have always been within a few miles of where I live so my tuners don't need the pulling power and I listen generally to the low end of the band so stations are not close together.
As for the receivers, well we could discuss them all day long and never convicne the other. My experiences were with new units while I think yours is more recent and that is why I said that given the age comparing used units you probably would be a good judge since units as they age do sound different. You are probably finding that the 2xxx series is aging better than the 18 or 19. Or possibly if you have only used a small sampling of the 18s and 19s they may not have been within spec. Remember these are 30+ years old. As for what the 18 and 19 represent in the audio industry, nothing Marantz has come out with since can challenge them but then is remark is not about sound but a slice of time.
I will not sell Marantz short but, likewise I will not place them higher than most of their competiton. My first stereo system was a Quad system when most of the kids my age were using portable phonos. I was using KLH Nines when most others were into KLH 6s. I owned 4 stores when most kids my age were still in college. The lower limit of my systems during my impressionable formative years was out of Stereophile Class A component lists. I had a great time when the industry was still young and so was I. Today, it is not about equipment for me but just sitting back and listening to the music. I could easily do it with my main Mc system or all the way down to my little Dyna SCA35/FM-3 combo. Either way I just enjoy the music.
As for the receivers, well we could discuss them all day long and never convicne the other. My experiences were with new units while I think yours is more recent and that is why I said that given the age comparing used units you probably would be a good judge since units as they age do sound different. You are probably finding that the 2xxx series is aging better than the 18 or 19. Or possibly if you have only used a small sampling of the 18s and 19s they may not have been within spec. Remember these are 30+ years old. As for what the 18 and 19 represent in the audio industry, nothing Marantz has come out with since can challenge them but then is remark is not about sound but a slice of time.
I will not sell Marantz short but, likewise I will not place them higher than most of their competiton. My first stereo system was a Quad system when most of the kids my age were using portable phonos. I was using KLH Nines when most others were into KLH 6s. I owned 4 stores when most kids my age were still in college. The lower limit of my systems during my impressionable formative years was out of Stereophile Class A component lists. I had a great time when the industry was still young and so was I. Today, it is not about equipment for me but just sitting back and listening to the music. I could easily do it with my main Mc system or all the way down to my little Dyna SCA35/FM-3 combo. Either way I just enjoy the music.
danj
modern primitive
Let us consider some of the lower-cost vintage units for awhile. I do think we've about played out the Mac and Marantz angle for the moment.
Most under-rated: KLH receivers. When's the last time you heard about these? Well, they were relatively low powered, even for their era BUT they were really fine designs that had a wonderful musically accurate sound. I remember hearing one of these at a (now long gone) audio salon. Hooked up to a pair of KLH speakers and a Thorens TD-125 turntable, this modest system blew away some of the much more costly systems. Later a friend of mine bought a $200 KLH receiver and a pair of 17s. He had em for years. Never had a problem and always had fine sound.
Most over-rated: Harmon-Kardon. I always thought they sounded better than most but, from my experience, these are as reliable as an old YUGO.
BOSE made some really good speakers (some of the models) in their early days. Today their gear is laughable. It's way too expensive for the quality and relies on gimmick and pseudo-scientific babble rather than on good audio design. The Wave Radio DOES sound really good - for a radio - but is no way worth the high price. A Nakamichi, Proton, or one of the Henry Kloss designed radios sounds better and IS worth the fairly high asking price.
One man's opinion.
Most under-rated: KLH receivers. When's the last time you heard about these? Well, they were relatively low powered, even for their era BUT they were really fine designs that had a wonderful musically accurate sound. I remember hearing one of these at a (now long gone) audio salon. Hooked up to a pair of KLH speakers and a Thorens TD-125 turntable, this modest system blew away some of the much more costly systems. Later a friend of mine bought a $200 KLH receiver and a pair of 17s. He had em for years. Never had a problem and always had fine sound.
Most over-rated: Harmon-Kardon. I always thought they sounded better than most but, from my experience, these are as reliable as an old YUGO.
BOSE made some really good speakers (some of the models) in their early days. Today their gear is laughable. It's way too expensive for the quality and relies on gimmick and pseudo-scientific babble rather than on good audio design. The Wave Radio DOES sound really good - for a radio - but is no way worth the high price. A Nakamichi, Proton, or one of the Henry Kloss designed radios sounds better and IS worth the fairly high asking price.
One man's opinion.
Most Underrated/Overrated Brands
Got to be Onkyo. Previous posts. Everyone knows how much I like my T-4 tuner. Great perfomer. I cant recall the receiver I used in a bar setup with Cerwin Vegas but it filled the sports bar with good sounds. It never strained itself.
As far as overrated....forgive me, its Marantz. I worked on them in the '70's and its just OK. Great looks and lights. They were take it or leave it to me back then. Can't condemn the entire line though, my Quad 4070 intergrated works well on my rear speakers. It has worked equally well with my JBL-L100's and my Dynaco A35's. It shares time with my Mac MA 6100 up front with another pair of JBL's.
Got to agree with Nuke, Sorry folks just an opinion..:uzi: Eric
Got to be Onkyo. Previous posts. Everyone knows how much I like my T-4 tuner. Great perfomer. I cant recall the receiver I used in a bar setup with Cerwin Vegas but it filled the sports bar with good sounds. It never strained itself.
As far as overrated....forgive me, its Marantz. I worked on them in the '70's and its just OK. Great looks and lights. They were take it or leave it to me back then. Can't condemn the entire line though, my Quad 4070 intergrated works well on my rear speakers. It has worked equally well with my JBL-L100's and my Dynaco A35's. It shares time with my Mac MA 6100 up front with another pair of JBL's.
Got to agree with Nuke, Sorry folks just an opinion..:uzi: Eric
CUlater
Member #287, thereabouts
I'd have to agree with the KLH receivers (DUH) being some of the most underrated. Also, I never have understood the relatively poor reputation Kenwood, Technics, and Sony seem to have - my experiences with all of them were outstanding. Other dark horses: The big Akai AA-11xx series, and JVC JR-Sxxx series.
As for overrated, I'd have to say McIntosh - not that they're not fine, but I just don't see the order of magnitude improvement...guess once the sweet spot on the hifi quality curve is passed, the curve becomes highly asymptotic.
Oh, and don't forget about Yorx and Lloyd's.
uke:
As for overrated, I'd have to say McIntosh - not that they're not fine, but I just don't see the order of magnitude improvement...guess once the sweet spot on the hifi quality curve is passed, the curve becomes highly asymptotic.
Oh, and don't forget about Yorx and Lloyd's.
uke:Marantzaholic
Active Member
More underrated
There are a few brands that I don't recall seeing yet. These should arouse a few responses.... :uzi: First is MCS.... Yes, the brand sold through, ahem, J.C. Penny's. Now before the flamethrowers come out, let me qualify...
Much of MCS gear was made by Technics, and as some of you know, Technics did make some very respectable gear back in the late 70's and into the early 80's. This is specifically the gear I'm referring to here. I recently owned a 3260 receiver and it was cherry. 60 honest wpc, good sound, and terrific looks at a reasonable price. $48 on ebay plus shipping. No, it is not a McIntosh killer, but it can be had much cheaper than the more well known brands. (Insert your favorite here.)
Another brand that gets little respect in audiophile circles is Realistic. Again, you have to be careful, but some of the receivers, speakers, amps and tuners are true sleepers as far as sound quality, build quality, and looks. I'm not sure who they got to design their equipment, but a lot of it was really top notch. It also goes for very reasonable amounts on ebay.
Akai does not get much mention here, but during their heyday, they made some very respectable gear which is very affordable second hand. Love the AA-R22/AA-R32/AA-R42 series of receivers, with their "Star Wars" flowchart FL Displays. Picked up an AA-R22 in perfect working and cosmetic condition in the thrift store for $20. 30wpc, decent sound and unbeatable cool factor. Their cassette decks are also very competitive with Nakamichi for $hundreds less.
ADS speakers are IMHO, are among the best values in the speaker market, period. I have yet to hear ANY speaker under $3,000 that can top my L-1090/2's in overall musicality. Yes, in one area or another they may not be the absolute best, but overall listenability they are tops. I have owned JBL J325A, L-80T, Pioneer HPM-100 and HPM-60, Paradigm Monitor 9 V2, Infinity ES-63, Mission 700, and auditioned or owned dozens of others and I keep coming back to my ADS's. I realize that sound quality largely is personal preference, but I challenge someone who truly wants to hear music as it is supposed to sound to listen to these and not be impressed.
I cannot think of any other brands right now... Just my 2 cents for now.
There are a few brands that I don't recall seeing yet. These should arouse a few responses.... :uzi: First is MCS.... Yes, the brand sold through, ahem, J.C. Penny's. Now before the flamethrowers come out, let me qualify...
Much of MCS gear was made by Technics, and as some of you know, Technics did make some very respectable gear back in the late 70's and into the early 80's. This is specifically the gear I'm referring to here. I recently owned a 3260 receiver and it was cherry. 60 honest wpc, good sound, and terrific looks at a reasonable price. $48 on ebay plus shipping. No, it is not a McIntosh killer, but it can be had much cheaper than the more well known brands. (Insert your favorite here.)
Another brand that gets little respect in audiophile circles is Realistic. Again, you have to be careful, but some of the receivers, speakers, amps and tuners are true sleepers as far as sound quality, build quality, and looks. I'm not sure who they got to design their equipment, but a lot of it was really top notch. It also goes for very reasonable amounts on ebay.
Akai does not get much mention here, but during their heyday, they made some very respectable gear which is very affordable second hand. Love the AA-R22/AA-R32/AA-R42 series of receivers, with their "Star Wars" flowchart FL Displays. Picked up an AA-R22 in perfect working and cosmetic condition in the thrift store for $20. 30wpc, decent sound and unbeatable cool factor. Their cassette decks are also very competitive with Nakamichi for $hundreds less.
ADS speakers are IMHO, are among the best values in the speaker market, period. I have yet to hear ANY speaker under $3,000 that can top my L-1090/2's in overall musicality. Yes, in one area or another they may not be the absolute best, but overall listenability they are tops. I have owned JBL J325A, L-80T, Pioneer HPM-100 and HPM-60, Paradigm Monitor 9 V2, Infinity ES-63, Mission 700, and auditioned or owned dozens of others and I keep coming back to my ADS's. I realize that sound quality largely is personal preference, but I challenge someone who truly wants to hear music as it is supposed to sound to listen to these and not be impressed.
I cannot think of any other brands right now... Just my 2 cents for now.
