Was The Marantz B versions a sales gimmick with a facelift?
- Thread starter vinny55
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
No expert here. In any case, opinions will vary; but, for what it's worth, the "B" changes designated that internal design changes had been made. The power levels and advertised performance parameters were usually little changed; but the circuit design was generally redesigned to be more "cost effective".
Worth noting, in some cases along the way, where technology permitted, some enhancements were incorporated into the "B" 'updates'. One example that comes to mind was tuner sensitivity improvements in the late 70s, as the FM airways became more crowded. Generally, I prefer the build quality of the non-"B" models.
Just my opinion.
I am generally referring to the receivers, starting with the 2230/2245/2270 onward.
Certainly, as mentioned by fredmarantz in post #7, below, the 10B was a noteable exception, as were other early separates.
Worth noting, in some cases along the way, where technology permitted, some enhancements were incorporated into the "B" 'updates'. One example that comes to mind was tuner sensitivity improvements in the late 70s, as the FM airways became more crowded. Generally, I prefer the build quality of the non-"B" models.
Just my opinion.
I am generally referring to the receivers, starting with the 2230/2245/2270 onward.
Certainly, as mentioned by fredmarantz in post #7, below, the 10B was a noteable exception, as were other early separates.
Last edited:
A loophole in the system they used to their advantage
fredmarantz
Well-Known Member
"B" were changed electrically and sometimes also changed in the visual designs.
Sometimes for the better (often in the earlier years) - and sometimes for the worse (later years)
Let me give a few examples:
earlier models
The 10 was changed to 10B for the better. Better factory alignment (in ovens) before leaving factory and a couple of more features)
The 16 was changed to 16B (heavier amp - more watts) same high build-quality.
The 20 was changed to 20B - better reception (better sensivity) same build quality.
later models:
115 tuner -> 115B = mainly facelift + a few things of worse (plastic)
120 tuner -> 120B = facelift + better build + bigger O'scope
sometimes the "B" designation meant a whole new designed line eg. the 2252B - same build quality as 2250/B but with a major facelift and electric design change (imo not for the better).
There is NO indication that the "B" should make a worse unit than a non-"B" - version.
So my bottom line is the "B" designations were changes from the previous design - cosmetically or/and electrically - usually for the better, but not always.
Sometimes for the better (often in the earlier years) - and sometimes for the worse (later years)
Let me give a few examples:
earlier models
The 10 was changed to 10B for the better. Better factory alignment (in ovens) before leaving factory and a couple of more features)
The 16 was changed to 16B (heavier amp - more watts) same high build-quality.
The 20 was changed to 20B - better reception (better sensivity) same build quality.
later models:
115 tuner -> 115B = mainly facelift + a few things of worse (plastic)
120 tuner -> 120B = facelift + better build + bigger O'scope
sometimes the "B" designation meant a whole new designed line eg. the 2252B - same build quality as 2250/B but with a major facelift and electric design change (imo not for the better).
There is NO indication that the "B" should make a worse unit than a non-"B" - version.
So my bottom line is the "B" designations were changes from the previous design - cosmetically or/and electrically - usually for the better, but not always.
Last edited:
according to some tunerphiles the 20 (Fm tuner site) was the better sounding tuner but to some others the 20b was. so its debatable
Superscope owned Marantz during the entire run of the 2000-series receivers, IIRC.
Jailtime
Standin' on a corner
Well said.
It takes hands-on/listening experience to know the differences in B models. A 2235B is the same as a 2235, B has a signal strength meter though. Pretty sure 2240/2240B and 2250/2250B are damn near the same receivers. But open up a 2285B and a 2285 to compare those. Completely different design.
ChrisMarantz
Super Member
These discussions always seem to be about which model is better than the other. Older is not always better. Designs and available technology along with manufacturing processes change over time. Not all changes were made to cheapen up a unit and save money. Designs that use dual core capacitors were common in those day and no one would have guessed that the parts would not be available 30 years later.
I'm sure that Marantz wanted to keep their products relevant and current to compete against other brands and get as many as possible into the hands of consumers.
If models were never updated we would be living with designs that never change. Different model versions are just that, different.
I'm sure that Marantz wanted to keep their products relevant and current to compete against other brands and get as many as possible into the hands of consumers.
If models were never updated we would be living with designs that never change. Different model versions are just that, different.
While your point is well made... certainly you can see the economy of design engineered into the various model updates through the terrible Economy of the late 70s... through the 4th quarter of 1982, when the Economy finally began to recover. Econonics demanded that cost-cutting be engineered into the 'NEW' products. By then the "Stereo" business had virtually withered on the proverbial vine.
Anybody remember the Arib oil embargo, when premium gasoline jumped from 25 cents/gal. to 45 cents in one week. GM froze R&D spending, and gave us the same chassis, with a new front grill and tail lights, for the better part of 10 years. The rest remained the same. Only advertising increased... "We Build Excitement", so sayeth Pontiac in through the 70s.
I know, I'm showing my age. I sold this stuff in the 70s. We knew what was going on inside. A good friend of mine ran our service department in the mid 70s. You should have heard them piss and moan... The word was out!
No doubt about it, Sony/Superscope did not share the same committment to quality that barely survived into the early/mid 70s.
Saul would not have been happy...
Last edited:
Brian
An Old Geezer
jstang, there is actually only 2, the 7 and the 7T. The 7 is tube and the 7T transistor. The 7C nomenclature seems to have arisen from one of 2 times/sources. The prior preamp was named the Consolette. Some speculate that the C designation came from offering the 7 with the wood sleeve and other suggect that when the 7T came out the populance started calling the 7 the 7C to refer to the 7 as the 7 Consolette, a throwback to the earlier tube pre.
AFAIK, there were no improvements or changes to the 7 similar to the 10/10b, 8/8b, etc.
AFAIK, there were no improvements or changes to the 7 similar to the 10/10b, 8/8b, etc.
... "suffered"...
Pray tell, in what context do you say "suffered"?
Was it a reliability issue? Tubes, bias... what was the problem?
One day I might like to add either a pair of 9s or an 8B (and, of course, a 7/7C) to my collection; but I've got to part with some other equipment first.
Tell your story... please.
Last edited: