ZAKO Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 When PHILLIPS bought MARANTZ from Superscope. Marantz came back out of the dark ages. Alot of damage was done. Superscope wanted a Marantz at every price point. Quality in circuite topolagy went to hell. It took alot of cash to pump life into Marantz & bring it back to high quality again. Marantz now stands on its own & has merged with DENNON & MCINTOSH. It will be interesting to see what those 3 audio Musketeers will produce in 2004. MARANTZ has come out with a new ss version of the mod 7 & mod 9 called SC-7 S1 preamp & MA-9 S1 mono amp. It will set you back more than a pair of Klipschorns. I guess ill have to wait till the CES in VEGAS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBusa Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 I've owned and used a bunch of the heavyweight 70's receivers. My favorite was a marantz 2330 from 1977. 130 wpc, wood case, beautiful siver and blue face. It sounded great! Also have used almost every pioneer SX receiver they made. From the sx1980 down to the sx650. The sx1980 is the totl 270wpc receiver! HUGE HUGE piece! I've had a few sansui 9090 and the 9090db's. Also a totl, big G9700. The 70's big receivers are really cool and sound great. Here's a pic of my marantz system about a year ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 It's not just nostalgia here. When we played a CD through the new Sony it sounded like total CRAP compared to the old Kenwood. I'm sure it's the same for the other vintage SS 70s receivers. I don't know enough about the electronics to explain why but I can certainly hear a major difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch RF7 Posted December 31, 2003 Author Share Posted December 31, 2003 ---------------- On 12/30/2003 10:24:58 PM garymd wrote: It's not just nostalgia here. When we played a CD through the new Sony it sounded like total CRAP compared to the old Kenwood. I'm sure it's the same for the other vintage SS 70s receivers. I don't know enough about the electronics to explain why but I can certainly hear a major difference. ---------------- Exactly! It has to do with the current that the amps are putting out, the new recievers are all about circuitry and gizmos and gadgets, Dolby pro logic this and DTS that, blah blah blah. They dont have the balls of the older recievers simply because theyre power supplys are weak and not made for 2 channel stereo, Now my Rotel sounds very good for movies with heavy bass and crystal clear soundtrack and sound effects and hits hard on bass and sound effects, on 2 channel it sounds very good and has some heft. But I cant wait to get the Scott and give the RF-7's a kick in the old jewels and see what they can produce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 ---------------- On 12/31/2003 12:04:29 AM Georg Friedrich Handel wrote: ---------------- On 12/30/2003 10:24:58 PM garymd wrote: It's not just nostalgia here. When we played a CD through the new Sony it sounded like total CRAP compared to the old Kenwood. I'm sure it's the same for the other vintage SS 70s receivers. I don't know enough about the electronics to explain why but I can certainly hear a major difference. ---------------- Exactly! It has to do with the current that the amps are putting out, the new recievers are all about circuitry and gizmos and gadgets, Dolby pro logic this and DTS that, blah blah blah. They dont have the balls of the older recievers simply because theyre power supplys are weak and not made for 2 channel stereo, Now my Rotel sounds very good for movies with heavy bass and crystal clear soundtrack and sound effects and hits hard on bass and sound effects, on 2 channel it sounds very good and has some heft. But I cant wait to get the Scott and give the RF-7's a kick in the old jewels and see what they can produce ---------------- Glad to hear you decided on a scott. You won't be dissappointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipschfoot Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 One of the nicest assets of these old receivers is the quality of the tuner. Many manufacturers don't care at all about listening to the "radio" anymore. ---------------- But I cant wait to get the Scott and give the RF-7's a kick in the old jewels and see what they can produce ---------------- Could you put that a different way? Some of us have other connotations to "jewels." Happy New Year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Funny, I've recently been listening and watching Bruford's Footloose in NY DVD...some really excellent jazz with some thunderously low acoustic bass, and mostly have been listening to it with my Scott 222D. Some of the bass is either muddy or inaudible. As I listened tonight, I was too lazy to hook up the Scott and I listened to it through the Marantz 2270 and even at not so loud volume setting found the bass to be a little more exact while the rest of the sound was very pleasing. This will require some more extended listening. Maybe biamping will give some good results? I dunno yet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Andy, I just recalled I had asked (what, a year ago?) if you'd care to experiment with some of these 12AU7's and 12AX7's, salvaged from the organs. I'm sorry...so forgetful. You must think I'm a jerk (don't answer that). Would you still like to try them? Let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwatkins Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Not to rain on the nostalga parade, but let's be sure we are apples to apples in comparing to today's costs - I think you will have to compare many of your 70s vintage stuff mentioned to SS units in the 1K to 1.5K range considering the value of a 70s dollar to todays dollar. I do think if you shop in that range, restrict it to recievers and integrateds, you will find very comparable solutions. But then again, what do I really know - Rush sounded pretty much the same on any amp... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Garrison Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Please compare equivalent components when doing things like this. That Marantz 2325, which was certainly an excellent product for its time (see lauditory review here) cost $799.95 in 1975 dollars. Converting to 2003 dollars, using the tables found at Oregon State University we find we're talking about a product that retails for $2,730.20 today. If you compare the sound of the 1975 Marantz to the sound of a $2,700 receiver today, you might find the $2,700 receiver sounds better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 ---------------- On 12/31/2003 9:09:39 AM Ray Garrison wrote: Please compare equivalent components when doing things like this. That Marantz 2325, which was certainly an excellent product for its time (see lauditory review here) cost $799.95 in 1975 dollars. Converting to 2003 dollars, using the tables found at Oregon State University we find we're talking about a product that retails for $2,730.20 today. If you compare the sound of the 1975 Marantz to the sound of a $2,700 receiver today, you might find the $2,700 receiver sounds better. ---------------- Name one. Or two. It's not that I don't believe you but I'd like to know. Also, I don't think it's a fair price comparison. Electronics have come way down in price since the 70s. Look at TVs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Ray, your numbers are excellent thank you, but the point is that a $5 or $50 vintage reciever could sound better than a $500 modern tin box.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipschfoot Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 I don't think comparing age-adjusted cost is the greater point. Handel was just pointing out the quality sound from some of these older receivers. Could it be that a good amp simply had to have higher build quality to reproduce good analog sound whereas new equipment is depending a lot on the inherent dynamic range of the CD format? Gary is right about the cost of electronics lowering all the time. The proliferation of cheaper parts and PCBs have made everything cheaper and lighter. And "bass" from resonating speaker enclosures is cheaper than moving a large air mass with huge voice coils and wide diaphrams. The digital format has made audio (not video) cheaper but not always better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch RF7 Posted December 31, 2003 Author Share Posted December 31, 2003 Just for comparisons, my buddy and i went to a high end stereo shop and listened to a $3000 Yamaha reciever that was huge, playing a SACD on a Denon player and some Boston Accoustics floor standing speakers with 2 6.5" drivers and Dynamic tweeter, He played a song from The Police and it was dead, absolutely no gusto, no bass, it was tinny and bright. At that point we realised that price doesnt always beget quality. We went home and plopped in front of the old Marantz and my RF-3 speakers that he's demoing from me right now which he will buy in a few weeks from me, but we put in classical, jazz, gloria estafan and boy did we rock that apartment. The bass was so deep and clean and powerful, the Klipsch really do shine with lots of quality power being fed to them. Heck, we even stopped by Tweeter and listened to a pair of $12k speakers with 2 5.25" paper drivers and a 1" tweeter, that thing doesnt even compare to my RF-7's whatsoever and the RF-3's sounded better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tillerman Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 My reasons for owning some vintage SS equipment: - nostalgia plays a part. - cost to own. As mentioned previously, many of these pieces are very inexpensive to buy. - recycling. I like saving otherwise useful gear from the landfill. - build quality for current cost to own. - performance. As mentioned previously, the 70's gear usually had discrete components and huge power supplies. While I don't endorse all equipment from the 70's, there were some wonderful designs that still sound excellent today. Obviously, many of the vintage tube afficianados on this forum have found that restored classics bring new meaning into their listening. My restored vintage SS power amp is a wonderful sounding piece that I have compared to a Scott 299B and Heath W5Ms, and I preferred the SS amp. Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whell Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 My old Sansui 9090 receiver (the non "DB" model) sounds great on my bedroom system, and sounded pretty good when hooked up to my RB-5's. However, IMHO, my newer Marantz PM-7000 integrated makes the RB-5's sound a bit better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwatkins Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 It is interesting with how much I agree with here. However, my point was that if you spent X dollars in 1975 you would be looking at X dollars in 2004. I stand by that comment and can note several Marantz, Carver, HK and Denon models in that range (assumming we are talking the same - a two channel unit with maybe a tuner and/or a matrixed center) that are very much competition for the same 70's units. I'll go so far as to say some are better at a better comparable price. I do not agree with the TV analogy, except to note that mid-fi (for lack of a better term) has become better priced than in the 70s. Many of the so called advances are with a compressed digital signal and the addition of encoded signals. A full bandwidth unit is still relatively priced to the 70s model. That said - I listened to my HK740 in my office this morning and I am darned tickled with the way it sounds - picked it up for $125 in 1991. One of the best deals I ever got.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Garrison Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 I didn't mean to imply that vintage equipment couldn't sound better, just that comparing a then expensive vintage piece with a new cheapie product would not be a valid comparison. I currently use an old TEAC AS100 integrated amp from sometime back in prehistory... weighs a ton, build like a tank, somewhat technicolored but undeniably lively sound with good prat (pace, rythm and timing... old Naim/Linn term). I compared it to a Krell KAV300i and I liked the TEAC better. I also use an older (early 80's vintage) Rotel RA850BX2 integrated - best headphone amp I've found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.