| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
In praise of the Marantz 7c
|
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
In praise of the Marantz 7c
On Jun 14, 8:16�am, John Stone wrote:
On 6/13/10 4:13 PM, in article , "Bret L" wrote: �A properly updated Marantz 7C is at least the equal of any commercially available pre today, with the exception of its phono stage being good really only with a few carts. What does "properly updated" mean? The stock 7C is decidedly sub par by today's standards in almost any measurement of specs. �It's basically the same thing as a pair of Marantz 1's, dating back to the early 50's. It used a crude half wave unregulated HV power supply, and was loaded with "bumble bee" caps that are, by now, all leaky as hell. It couldn't drive even moderately low impedance amps without considerable bass droop. The volume control didn't track very well and had a tendency to get noisy or fail altogether. Residual noise in the line stage was high enough to be annoying with high sensitivity speakers. While it was reasonably well built for the day, �was nice looking, and had decent tone controls, it also had 50's style RCA jacks which were horrible. �How would you bring the 7C into the twenty first century? I have my own ideas but those actually interested in audio, if any, may share their ideas first. I'd sell at a ridiculous price it to some gullible Japanese collector who worships at the altar of 50's Marantz equipment, and then go out and buy a modern preamp. Agreed. I heard one recently, one that was supposedly in perfect condition, and I just couldn't get that excited about it. And the price they wanted for it was obscene. |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
In praise of the Marantz 7c
On Jun 14, 8:16*am, John Stone wrote:
On 6/13/10 4:13 PM, in article , "Bret L" wrote: *A properly updated Marantz 7C is at least the equal of any commercially available pre today, with the exception of its phono stage being good really only with a few carts. What does "properly updated" mean? The stock 7C is decidedly sub par by today's standards in almost any measurement of specs. *It's basically the same thing as a pair of Marantz 1's, dating back to the early 50's. It used a crude half wave unregulated HV power supply, and was loaded with "bumble bee" caps that are, by now, all leaky as hell. It couldn't drive even moderately low impedance amps without considerable bass droop. The volume control didn't track very well and had a tendency to get noisy or fail altogether. Residual noise in the line stage was high enough to be annoying with high sensitivity speakers. While it was reasonably well built for the day, *was nice looking, and had decent tone controls, it also had 50's style RCA jacks which were horrible. I would build a modern and better power supply, for starters. In fact in a commercial product I'd build a chassis like the many communications equipment mainframes where the PS would be unitized and either physically bolt to the back of the chassis or could be run remotely via an umbilical. This beats the CE regulations because the set is one piece in those markets. All components would be modern and of good quality. A stereo stepped attenuator would replace the volume control pots . Residual line noise would be lower with a better power supply and with fewer noisy components of course. An article on this was put forth in Audio Amateur magazine in the mid-1980s. That was actually the start of American, versus mainly Oriental, interest in the Marantz 7 (and its impossibly close copy the McIntosh C22) : people realized how well the old beast worked when updated. As far as high output impedance, it's fine with most all tube amplifiers. If lower output impedance is needed, one refinement would be to provide for transformers to be added via sockets as was done in so much commercial gear. This would provide for true balanced 600 ohm output so it could fit in tho the Real World of pro audio if needed whilst not inflicting the considerable cost of the transformers on users not needing them. |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
In praise of the Marantz 7c
On Jun 14, 5:27*pm, Bret L wrote:
On Jun 14, 8:16*am, John Stone wrote: On 6/13/10 4:13 PM, in article , "Bret L" wrote: *A properly updated Marantz 7C is at least the equal of any commercially available pre today, with the exception of its phono stage being good really only with a few carts. What does "properly updated" mean? The stock 7C is decidedly sub par by today's standards in almost any measurement of specs. *It's basically the same thing as a pair of Marantz 1's, dating back to the early 50's. It used a crude half wave unregulated HV power supply, and was loaded with "bumble bee" caps that are, by now, all leaky as hell. It couldn't drive even moderately low impedance amps without considerable bass droop. The volume control didn't track very well and had a tendency to get noisy or fail altogether. Residual noise in the line stage was high enough to be annoying with high sensitivity speakers. While it was reasonably well built for the day, *was nice looking, and had decent tone controls, it also had 50's style RCA jacks which were horrible. *I would build a modern and better power supply, for starters. *In fact in a commercial product I'd build a chassis like the many communications equipment mainframes where the PS would be unitized and either physically bolt to the back of the chassis or could be run remotely via an umbilical. This beats the CE regulations because the set is one piece in those markets. *All components would be modern and of good quality. *A stereo stepped attenuator would replace the volume control pots . Residual line noise would be lower with a better power supply and with fewer noisy components of course. *An article on this was put forth in Audio Amateur magazine in the mid-1980s. That was actually the start of American, versus mainly Oriental, interest in the Marantz 7 (and its impossibly close copy the McIntosh C22) : people realized how well the old beast worked when updated. *As far as high output impedance, it's fine with most all tube amplifiers. If lower output impedance is needed, one refinement would be to provide for transformers to be added via sockets as was done in so much commercial gear. This would provide for true balanced 600 ohm output so it could fit in tho the Real World of pro audio if needed whilst not inflicting the considerable cost of the transformers on users not needing them. Why would you go to all of this bother when there are better products available for far cheaper without butchering up an expensive old Marantz? You didn't answer that one. |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
In praise of the Marantz 7c
On Jun 15, 5:11*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Jun 14, 5:27*pm, Bret L wrote: On Jun 14, 8:16*am, John Stone wrote: On 6/13/10 4:13 PM, in article , "Bret L" wrote: *A properly updated Marantz 7C is at least the equal of any commercially available pre today, with the exception of its phono stage being good really only with a few carts. What does "properly updated" mean? The stock 7C is decidedly sub par by today's standards in almost any measurement of specs. *It's basically the same thing as a pair of Marantz 1's, dating back to the early 50's. It used a crude half wave unregulated HV power supply, and was loaded with "bumble bee" caps that are, by now, all leaky as hell. It couldn't drive even moderately low impedance amps without considerable bass droop. The volume control didn't track very well and had a tendency to get noisy or fail altogether. Residual noise in the line stage was high enough to be annoying with high sensitivity speakers. While it was reasonably well built for the day, *was nice looking, and had decent tone controls, it also had 50's style RCA jacks which were horrible. *I would build a modern and better power supply, for starters. *In fact in a commercial product I'd build a chassis like the many communications equipment mainframes where the PS would be unitized and either physically bolt to the back of the chassis or could be run remotely via an umbilical. This beats the CE regulations because the set is one piece in those markets. *All components would be modern and of good quality. *A stereo stepped attenuator would replace the volume control pots . Residual line noise would be lower with a better power supply and with fewer noisy components of course. *An article on this was put forth in Audio Amateur magazine in the mid-1980s. That was actually the start of American, versus mainly Oriental, interest in the Marantz 7 (and its impossibly close copy the McIntosh C22) : people realized how well the old beast worked when updated. *As far as high output impedance, it's fine with most all tube amplifiers. If lower output impedance is needed, one refinement would be to provide for transformers to be added via sockets as was done in so much commercial gear. This would provide for true balanced 600 ohm output so it could fit in tho the Real World of pro audio if needed whilst not inflicting the considerable cost of the transformers on users not needing them. Why would you go to all of this bother when there are better products available for far cheaper without butchering up an expensive old Marantz? I wouldn't. I would build a new unit from scratch with the features I wanted. A good DIYer could do it for maybe three hundred bucks in parts, if he made his own step attenuator from switches and boards, with a little scrounging. |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
In praise of the Marantz 7c
On Jun 15, 9:06*pm, Bret L wrote:
On Jun 15, 5:11*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Jun 14, 5:27*pm, Bret L wrote: On Jun 14, 8:16*am, John Stone wrote: On 6/13/10 4:13 PM, in article , "Bret L" wrote: *A properly updated Marantz 7C is at least the equal of any commercially available pre today, with the exception of its phono stage being good really only with a few carts. What does "properly updated" mean? The stock 7C is decidedly sub par by today's standards in almost any measurement of specs. *It's basically the same thing as a pair of Marantz 1's, dating back to the early 50's. It used a crude half wave unregulated HV power supply, and was loaded with "bumble bee" caps that are, by now, all leaky as hell. It couldn't drive even moderately low impedance amps without considerable bass droop. The volume control didn't track very well and had a tendency to get noisy or fail altogether. Residual noise in the line stage was high enough to be annoying with high sensitivity speakers. While it was reasonably well built for the day, *was nice looking, and had decent tone controls, it also had 50's style RCA jacks which were horrible. *I would build a modern and better power supply, for starters. *In fact in a commercial product I'd build a chassis like the many communications equipment mainframes where the PS would be unitized and either physically bolt to the back of the chassis or could be run remotely via an umbilical. This beats the CE regulations because the set is one piece in those markets. *All components would be modern and of good quality. *A stereo stepped attenuator would replace the volume control pots .. Residual line noise would be lower with a better power supply and with fewer noisy components of course. *An article on this was put forth in Audio Amateur magazine in the mid-1980s. That was actually the start of American, versus mainly Oriental, interest in the Marantz 7 (and its impossibly close copy the McIntosh C22) : people realized how well the old beast worked when updated. *As far as high output impedance, it's fine with most all tube amplifiers. If lower output impedance is needed, one refinement would be to provide for transformers to be added via sockets as was done in so much commercial gear. This would provide for true balanced 600 ohm output so it could fit in tho the Real World of pro audio if needed whilst not inflicting the considerable cost of the transformers on users not needing them. Why would you go to all of this bother when there are better products available for far cheaper without butchering up an expensive old Marantz? *I wouldn't. I would build a new unit from scratch with the features I wanted. A good DIYer could do it for maybe three hundred bucks in parts, if he made his own step attenuator from switches and boards, with a little scrounging. Then again, the McIntosh C2200 is still a much more intriguing preamp than the 7C. Isn't it funny that Marantz, McIntosh and Luxman are making their best- sounding equipment today, in 2010? A DIYer really can't match that stuff. |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
In praise of the Marantz 7c
On Jun 15, 10:08*pm, Boon wrote:
On Jun 15, 9:06*pm, Bret L wrote: *As far as high output impedance, it's fine with most all tube amplifiers. If lower output impedance is needed, one refinement would be to provide for transformers to be added via sockets as was done in so much commercial gear. This would provide for true balanced 600 ohm output so it could fit in tho the Real World of pro audio if needed whilst not inflicting the considerable cost of the transformers on users not needing them. Why would you go to all of this bother when there are better products available for far cheaper without butchering up an expensive old Marantz? *I wouldn't. I would build a new unit from scratch with the features I wanted. A good DIYer could do it for maybe three hundred bucks in parts, if he made his own step attenuator from switches and boards, with a little scrounging. Then again, the McIntosh C2200 is still a much more intriguing preamp than the 7C. Isn't it funny that Marantz, McIntosh and Luxman are making their best- sounding equipment today, in 2010? A DIYer really can't match that stuff. Bull****. Most of this stuff is so complicated that it would indeed be infeasible for a DIYer to emulate, but that does not mean it's good. Its very complexity with "features" like on-the-fly cartridge loading via remote control introduce new issues. Actually, my real hope is that commercial vendors would pick up on the idea I put forth, and manufacturing them in some quantity the price would come down. But the DIYer is the core true audiophile per se, and is much to be celebrated. You don't have to build your own stuff to be an audiophile but it is the most rewarding facet, in my opinion, of the hobby. As far as the ARC SP-3a, http://www.arcdb.ws/SP3/ARC_SP3A1_schematic.gif http://sites.google.com/site/mpbarne...archsp-3preamp give useful info. It does seem to be a M7 derivative and to me that just validates what I originally said. As Simone Signoret said when informed Yves Montand, her husband, had been putting it to Marilyn..... |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
In praise of the Marantz 7c
On Jun 16, 5:57*pm, Bret L wrote:
On Jun 15, 10:08*pm, Boon wrote: On Jun 15, 9:06*pm, Bret L wrote: *As far as high output impedance, it's fine with most all tube amplifiers. If lower output impedance is needed, one refinement would be to provide for transformers to be added via sockets as was done in so much commercial gear. This would provide for true balanced 600 ohm output so it could fit in tho the Real World of pro audio if needed whilst not inflicting the considerable cost of the transformers on users not needing them. Why would you go to all of this bother when there are better products available for far cheaper without butchering up an expensive old Marantz? *I wouldn't. I would build a new unit from scratch with the features I wanted. A good DIYer could do it for maybe three hundred bucks in parts, if he made his own step attenuator from switches and boards, with a little scrounging. Then again, the McIntosh C2200 is still a much more intriguing preamp than the 7C. Isn't it funny that Marantz, McIntosh and Luxman are making their best- sounding equipment today, in 2010? A DIYer really can't match that stuff. *Bull****. Most of this stuff is so complicated that it would indeed be infeasible for a DIYer to emulate, but that does not mean it's good. Its very complexity with "features" like on-the-fly cartridge loading via remote control introduce new issues. Mmmm...okay. You start off with bull****, and then you go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with what I said. News flash: when you say "bull****," you usually have to follow that up with a contrary statement. Or can we add Tourette's to your long list of psychological disorders? The stuff is good. I've heard it, and it's good. You probably have NOT heard any of it, as you have been proven as a liar in this respect more than once. *Actually, my real hope is that commercial vendors would pick up on the idea I put forth, and manufacturing them in some quantity the price would come down. But the DIYer is the core true audiophile per se, and is much to be celebrated. You don't have to build your own stuff to be an audiophile but it is the most rewarding facet, in my opinion, of the hobby. The most rewarding facet of the hobby IS and WILL ALWAYS BE listening to music, Jesus, you're a nutcase. If your so-called audio ideas were worth anything, someone would be doing it. Instead, we get a Bratzi wishlist that rarely reflects anything that has to do with marketing, sound quality, user interface or common sense. *As far as the ARC SP-3a, http://www.arcdb.ws/SP3/ARC_SP3A1_sc...archsp-3preamp give useful info. It does seem to be a M7 derivative and to me that just validates what I originally said. *As Simone Signoret said when informed Yves Montand, her husband, had been putting it to Marilyn..... So now you've spun off into your own little world again. Figures. |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
In praise of the Marantz 7c
|
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
In praise of the Marantz 7c
On Jun 16, 6:37*am, John Stone wrote:
On 6/15/10 9:06 PM, in article , "Bret L" wrote: *I would build a modern and better power supply, for starters. *In fact in a commercial product I'd build a chassis like the many communications equipment mainframes where the PS would be unitized and either physically bolt to the back of the chassis or could be run remotely via an umbilical. This beats the CE regulations because the set is one piece in those markets. *All components would be modern and of good quality. *A stereo stepped attenuator would replace the volume control pots .. Residual line noise would be lower with a better power supply and with fewer noisy components of course. *An article on this was put forth in Audio Amateur magazine in the mid-1980s. That was actually the start of American, versus mainly Oriental, interest in the Marantz 7 (and its impossibly close copy the McIntosh C22) : people realized how well the old beast worked when updated. *As far as high output impedance, it's fine with most all tube amplifiers. If lower output impedance is needed, one refinement would be to provide for transformers to be added via sockets as was done in so much commercial gear. This would provide for true balanced 600 ohm output so it could fit in tho the Real World of pro audio if needed whilst not inflicting the considerable cost of the transformers on users not needing them. Why would you go to all of this bother when there are better products available for far cheaper without butchering up an expensive old Marantz? *I wouldn't. I would build a new unit from scratch with the features I wanted. A good DIYer could do it for maybe three hundred bucks in parts, if he made his own step attenuator from switches and boards, with a little scrounging. The Audio Research SP3a would be a much better preamp to clone than the 7.. (There's actually no such thing as a 7C The C part is the wood case. ) ARC based their preamp on the Marantz 7, but with numerous enhancements like regulated power supply for B+ and heaters, better parts, etc. It also sounded far better than the Marantz, but mechanical design left a lot to be desired. It was a spaghetti factory inside. But given you would start from scratch, you could easily improve the mechanical quality. The basic design was very stable. I had both the 7 and SP3 in my audio systems, and compared the two extensively. It was no contest. The ARC won hands down. The Marantz 7 was really nothing special. Just a well executed, basic preamp. In fact, it really wasn't that much different from the Dyna PAS series, except that Marantz added a set of cathode followers for the phono and line stages, and of course used higher quality parts. But even Dyna had DC heaters and unlike Marantz used a full wave B+ supply.- Hide quoted text - I reviewed an SP-3 for TONE last year and you're absolutely right. We used it in an all conrad-johnson system where it substituted for an ART 2 preamplifier, and there was very little difference in the sound. We then put in the later (SS?) SP-4 and the whole soundstage shrunk to about half of its former size. The SP-3 is a dynamite tubed preamplifier, and it's actually fetching high prices on Audiogon and eBay due to its great sound quality, not its collectability. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
In praise of the Marantz 7c
On Jun 16, 9:11*am, Boon wrote:
On Jun 16, 6:37*am, John Stone wrote: On 6/15/10 9:06 PM, in article , "Bret L" wrote: *I would build a modern and better power supply, for starters. *In fact in a commercial product I'd build a chassis like the many communications equipment mainframes where the PS would be unitized and either physically bolt to the back of the chassis or could be run remotely via an umbilical. This beats the CE regulations because the set is one piece in those markets. *All components would be modern and of good quality. *A stereo stepped attenuator would replace the volume control pots . Residual line noise would be lower with a better power supply and with fewer noisy components of course. *An article on this was put forth in Audio Amateur magazine in the mid-1980s. That was actually the start of American, versus mainly Oriental, interest in the Marantz 7 (and its impossibly close copy the McIntosh C22) : people realized how well the old beast worked when updated. *As far as high output impedance, it's fine with most all tube amplifiers. If lower output impedance is needed, one refinement would be to provide for transformers to be added via sockets as was done in so much commercial gear. This would provide for true balanced 600 ohm output so it could fit in tho the Real World of pro audio if needed whilst not inflicting the considerable cost of the transformers on users not needing them. Why would you go to all of this bother when there are better products available for far cheaper without butchering up an expensive old Marantz? *I wouldn't. I would build a new unit from scratch with the features I wanted. A good DIYer could do it for maybe three hundred bucks in parts, if he made his own step attenuator from switches and boards, with a little scrounging. The Audio Research SP3a would be a much better preamp to clone than the 7. (There's actually no such thing as a 7C The C part is the wood case. ) ARC based their preamp on the Marantz 7, but with numerous enhancements like regulated power supply for B+ and heaters, better parts, etc. It also sounded far better than the Marantz, but mechanical design left a lot to be desired. It was a spaghetti factory inside. But given you would start from scratch, you could easily improve the mechanical quality. The basic design was very stable. I had both the 7 and SP3 in my audio systems, and compared the two extensively. It was no contest. The ARC won hands down. The Marantz 7 was really nothing special. Just a well executed, basic preamp. In fact, it really wasn't that much different from the Dyna PAS series, except that Marantz added a set of cathode followers for the phono and line stages, and of course used higher quality parts. But even Dyna had DC heaters and unlike Marantz used a full wave B+ supply.- Hide quoted text - I reviewed an SP-3 for TONE last year and you're absolutely right. We used it in an all conrad-johnson system where it substituted for an ART 2 preamplifier, and there was very little difference in the sound. We then put in the later (SS?) SP-4 and the whole soundstage shrunk to about half of its former size. The SP-3 is a dynamite tubed preamplifier, and it's actually fetching high prices on Audiogon and eBay due to its great sound quality, not its collectability. The SP-6 is also a very good preamp. You can pick one up used for about a grand. I doubt you could match that with a DIY project unless your time isn't worth anything. That explains why Bratzi would do it. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| In praise of older systems | Pro Audio | |||
| Now let us praise Otto Herbert Schmitt | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| RNC Praise | Pro Audio | |||
| praise for Apple Tech support | Pro Audio | |||
Hybrid Mode
