[pretzelb]

Is there one "agreed upon" reason why old Marantz receivers are so popular? I thought the general rule of thumb was that all receivers were inferior to amps yet it seems that the Marantz are sought after by some serious audiophiles.

I'm only asking out of ignorance. I'm assuming there was something in these receivers that made them superior to all the other receivers of the time. If so, I assume there's a reason why receivers today do NOT stack up to those old one. I'm not trying to stir a flame war, just asking for a history lesson.

 

[billinkansas]

Marantz receivers and integrated amps from the 1970's were well designed and well made with good sound. I've had two of them over the years. I actually prefer Sansui amps fromt eh 1970's, and Luxman amps from the early 1980's - wider and more ambient sound with headphones.

 

[facelvega]

Generally, pre-1980 receivers from the better manufacturers had quite respectable amp sections. Though Marantz made very nice mid-priced equipment, their vintage stuff is now too trendy to find at a good price-- it's what everyone thinks of first as a good vintage amp or receiver. It's easier now to find a good deal on comparable equipment from brands like Sansui, Pioneer, Yamaha, and Sherwood. Luxman is somewhere in the middle between trendy and bargain.

 

[mlhm5]

Originally, before Marantz was bought out by Superscope in 1964, Marantz units were made to compete with McIntosh.

As production moved to Japan in the 1970s, Marantz still maintained a steller name but it was not the same dedication to excellence found in McIntosh units.

Most people who bought in the 1970s believed that Marantz was second only to McIntosh.

When Philips bought Superscope in 1980, whatever Marantz was in the 1970 was over.

 

[MatsudaMan]

Even the new Marantz receivers are very good buys. My Dad just got an entry level home theater receiver and the performance is incredible for the cost (400 dollars). Not only do they sound good, but they also seem to be very well built. If I ever get a home theater set up, it'll be all Marantz.

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatsudaMan /img/forum/go_quote.gif If I ever get a home theater set up, it'll be all Marantz.

Yes good choice. About 6 years ago I was looking for a surround AV receiver. Got a Marantz SR-4000, a Yamaha of similar price range (don't recall the model of that one), and compared them together with a older Sony ES receiver that a friend of mine had. The sound in stereo of these three receivers was actually rather similar (using NHT tower speakers in the comparison). The Marantz had a significant discount online because of the newer models coming out that year. Normal price was $400+ but I got it brand new for about $260 iirc. Despite the similarity in sound, I observed that the Marantz was quieter. You could detect that the Yamaha had some minor sound leaks from different inputs when sending the volume to max. There was also some minor video leak between different video inputs. The Marantz had none of this issues, so I went for the Marantz. It is still the heart of my speaker system, both for stereo and home theater. Doesn't have DTS, but haven't felt that I need to upgrade it yet, very happy with it.

 

[pretzelb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlhm5 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Originally, before Marantz was bought out by Superscope in 1964, Marantz units were made to compete with McIntosh.

I'm glad you brought this up because I can recall both my uncle and my father getting equipment when I was a kid and my uncle had a Marantz and my father a McIntosh. The difference was my father had a tube amp and my uncle a receiver. Now I can still listen to the tube amp and since my father and I share the same Klipsch speakers it's easy for me to understand how a tube amp blows away a receiver (mine is a 1990's random Yamaha). But what I don't get is how a receiver from the 1970s is deemed sought after by audiophiles today.

Was the definition of receiver back then different from today? I don't think any audiophile would seek a receiver today yet it seems (I could be wrong here) that the do seek the Marantz receivers. Thus I'm not sure what I'm missing.

 

[pretzelb]

double post

 

[wafflesomd]

Eh, I prefer my Pioneer Elite receiver.

 

[skeeder]

I'm a huge fan of Yamaha's recievers I've had a bunch and zero problems, the marantz older recievers are legendary, and I've never had the honor of having one.

 

[Canuck57]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pretzelb /img/forum/go_quote.gif it's easy for me to understand how a tube amp blows away a receiver (mine is a 1990's random Yamaha). But what I don't get is how a receiver from the 1970s is deemed sought after by audiophiles today. Was the definition of receiver back then different from today? I don't think any audiophile would seek a receiver today yet it seems (I could be wrong here) that the do seek the Marantz receivers. Thus I'm not sure what I'm missing.

Integrated Amplifiers can be Tube OR Solid State or a hybrid between the two like my Luxman Integrated Amplifier which has a tube pre-amplifier and a solid state amplifier. Ditto with receivers being either tube or solid state.

As for sound quality it's up for debate as to whether tube or Solid state sounds better. I like both. There are great sounding receivers that can rival or sound better than some Integrated Receivers...

 

[OldRoadToad]

Perhaps another aspect of their desireabiity is their (and this is entirely subjective) "beauty". I realise that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and love is often blind, but many older receivers are quite good looking and have "class", if you will.

The Toad

 

[penguindude]

You simply cant compete with electronics (including hi-fi equip) from the 70s. Whether it's their part components or their workmanship, they will kill most of contemporary electronics that are made with low-budget cost and labour. In other words, back in the days, they sold quality, and now, they sell price (for the brand-names at least).

And Marantz receivers, combining tasteful look and delicious sound, is great for amping headphone, if you don't mind the 30lb weight. I don't know about other marantz, but am i right in saying that they generally have a nice warm signature to it?

 

[1Time]

I'm fairly experienced with eBay and find there to be quite a range of prices for vintage Marantz receivers and integrateds. Some of the more powerful units in mint condition are collector's items and reputed to still sound great. Contrast that with the Marantz 1060 and 1060B integrateds I won on eBay for $56 and $70 shipped.

My 1060B is currently driving my HD650's and speakers quite nicely. I expect to receive the 1060 this week. However, after adding my equalizer to the mix, I now would not recommend using a 1060B with headphones without also using an equalizer. I find my 1060B to be quite bass and treble heavy, so much so that it cannot be adequately compensated for without an equalizer.

 

[pretzelb]

Perhaps it's just me over generalizing what I read. I assumed an audiophile would never get just a receiver ... ever. But maybe what I'm seeing is some people getting integrated units (which I didn't consider) and some people who aren't what I generalize as audiophiles.

Thanks all for the info.