Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c

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.

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.
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
John Stone John Stone is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c

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.

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Boon[_2_] Boon[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,425
Default 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.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default 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.
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default 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.


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default 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.

  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Boon[_2_] Boon[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,425
Default 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.
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
John Stone John Stone is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c

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.

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Boon[_2_] Boon[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,425
Default 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.
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default 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.


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default 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.....

  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Boon[_2_] Boon[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,425
Default 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.

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c

On Jun 16, 6:56*pm, Boon wrote:


*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.


In your imagination that is.



*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 you just want to listen to music you do not become an audiophile
per se. You buy a halfway decent receiver and speakers and use them
forever, oblivious to what the market does. The saloons found that out
when they sponsored concerts, usually chamber music, classical guitar
or light jazz. The attendees wall guys that had 1970s Pioneer gear and
no intention of upgrading, and if they did, they preferred the
cheapest pair of two way speakers in the store and a Rotel
integrated. THIS IS A TECHNICAL , NOT MUSICAL HOBBY. IT"S ABOUT BEING
A GEARHEAD. IT"S A WHITE MALE KIND OF THING. Duhhhhhhhhhhhh.

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.


I daresay I know more about UI than you do. A Tektronix scope, a
Leica camera-that's good UI. Ampex 351, AG350, AG440, Studer (but NOT
Revox) -pretty good. Much of what's found in high end saloons today-
yecch.



*As far as the ARC SP-3a,


http://www.arcdb.ws/SP3/ARC_SP3A1_sc...ites.google.co...


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.- Hide quoted text -


Analogies are typically lost on the willfully obtuse. That's you (and
****ter).
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Boon[_2_] Boon[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,425
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c

On Jun 16, 8:55*pm, Bret L wrote:
On Jun 16, 6:56*pm, Boon wrote:

*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.


*In your imagination that is.


No, it's been proven. Koetsu, Harbeth, you name it....you haven't
heard it much less used it.



*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 you just want to listen to music you do not become an audiophile
per se. You buy a halfway decent receiver and speakers and use them
forever, oblivious to what the market does. The saloons found that out
when they sponsored concerts, usually chamber music, classical guitar
or light jazz. The attendees wall guys that had 1970s Pioneer gear and
no intention of upgrading, and if they did, they preferred the
cheapest pair of two way speakers in the store and a Rotel
integrated. *THIS IS A TECHNICAL , NOT MUSICAL HOBBY. IT"S ABOUT BEING
A GEARHEAD. IT"S A WHITE MALE KIND OF THING. Duhhhhhhhhhhhh.


That's a huge load of ****.

There's a reason why you're alone and spend all your time spamming an
audio group with white supremacist posts. You're a whackjob. You are
totally out of touch with the world around you. People come on RAO and
see your posts and wonder "Who the **** is this guy and what is his
problem?" Well, you're a white supremacist and you're autistic, for
starters.

You don't make sense to normal people. Autistic people rarely do.



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.


*I daresay I know more about UI than you do. A Tektronix scope, a
Leica camera-that's good UI. Ampex 351, AG350, AG440, Studer (but NOT
Revox) -pretty good. Much of what's found in high end saloons today-
yecch.


You have no idea what you're talking about. I've reviewed dozens of
high end components and many of them are a dream to use. You wouldn't
know because you have no access to it. None. You're talking out of
your ass...again. You're totally full of **** and everyone knows it.



*As far as the ARC SP-3a,


http://www.arcdb.ws/SP3/ARC_SP3A1_sc...ites.google.co....


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.- Hide quoted text -


*Analogies are typically lost on the willfully obtuse. That's you (and
****ter).


Bull****. Analogies need to make sense. As a professional editor, I'm
telling you your posts don't follow normal thought processes. That's
because you're autistic. Quit wasting everyone's time.
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c

On Jun 16, 9:13*pm, Boon wrote:
..

There's a reason why you're alone and spend all your time spamming an
audio group with white supremacist posts. You're a whackjob. You are
totally out of touch with the world around you. People come on RAO and
see your posts and wonder "Who the **** is this guy and what is his
problem?" Well, you're a white supremacist and you're autistic, for
starters.


You would not know a white supremacist if he bit you on the ass. You
have probably never even MET an ideologically cogent white
supremacist, although admittedly they are not all that common. I'm a
white nationalist, which is a very different thing, although you are
free to not like that either. At least i am straightforward in my
beliefs. You're a regular Snuffleuffagus.


You have no idea what you're talking about. I've reviewed dozens of
high end components and many of them are a dream to use. You wouldn't
know because you have no access to it. None. You're talking out of
your ass...again. You're totally full of **** and everyone knows it.


Show me a piece of high end saloon sold consumer gear that has an
interface that works as well as a Tek 2245b scope or a HP 8920 service
monitor.


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c

On Jun 20, 2:19*am, Bret L wrote:



. You have probably never even MET an ideologically cogent white
supremacist,


undoubtedly true, because there ain't no such thing.
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Boon[_2_] Boon[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,425
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c

On Jun 20, 1:19*am, Bret L wrote:
On Jun 16, 9:13*pm, Boon wrote:
.



There's a reason why you're alone and spend all your time spamming an
audio group with white supremacist posts. You're a whackjob. You are
totally out of touch with the world around you. People come on RAO and
see your posts and wonder "Who the **** is this guy and what is his
problem?" Well, you're a white supremacist and you're autistic, for
starters.


*You would not know a white supremacist if he bit you on the ass.


What a stupid thing to say. Most white supremacists are observed as
white supremacists becuase they espouse white supremacist beliefs.

You have probably never even MET an ideologically cogent white
supremacist, although admittedly they are not all that common.


I have met several. That's another naive and stupid thing to say. It's
like me saying to you, "you have never met a real liberal."


I'm a white nationalist, which is a very different thing, although you are
free to not like that either.


I don't like that because it is based upon a fallacy that white people
are entitiled to North America.

At least i am straightforward in my
beliefs. You're a regular Snuffleuffagus.


That's another really stupid thing to say. You are simple in your
beliefs because you are simple-minded.


You have no idea what you're talking about. I've reviewed dozens of
high end components and many of them are a dream to use. You wouldn't
know because you have no access to it. None. You're talking out of
your ass...again. You're totally full of **** and everyone knows it.


*Show me a piece of high end saloon sold consumer gear that has an
interface that works as well as a Tek 2245b scope or a HP 8920 service
monitor.


The Sooloos.

  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c

On Jun 20, 6:37*pm, Boon wrote:
On Jun 20, 1:19*am, Bret L wrote:

On Jun 16, 9:13*pm, Boon wrote:
.


There's a reason why you're alone and spend all your time spamming an
audio group with white supremacist posts. You're a whackjob. You are
totally out of touch with the world around you. People come on RAO and
see your posts and wonder "Who the **** is this guy and what is his
problem?" Well, you're a white supremacist and you're autistic, for
starters.


*You would not know a white supremacist if he bit you on the ass.


What a stupid thing to say. Most white supremacists are observed as
white supremacists becuase they espouse white supremacist beliefs.


White supremacists are fairly rare. A white supremacist is someone
who says the white race is superior by some objective standard. I make
no such claim. I make the claim that whites are a distinctive, not
necessarily better, race and have the right to survive no differently
that of any other race. I don't want to exterminate any race. I want
to preserve one in particular, which harms no one else. You bet I
disdain miscegenation, although say if a black and a Chinese want to
intermarry it's none of my business. When it involves my people, I
will do what I can within the bounds of law and elementary decency to
deter or, failing that, isolate it. I deal with race mixers the way
Chrissie Hynde deals with carnivores. I avoid them socially. I will
not award them, as Malice Rosenbomb said, the sanction of the victim.

Can that be awkward ? Yes, it can.

You have probably never even MET an ideologically cogent white
supremacist, although admittedly they are not all that common.


I have met several. That's another naive and stupid thing to say. It's
like me saying to you, "you have never met a real liberal."


A real liberal by what definition? A classical liberal? Yeah, I have
friends who are classical liberals. Extreme leftist liberals who can't
quite bring themselves to call themselves Marxists? Yeah, I had to put
up with their **** in school for years.

I'm a white nationalist, which is a very different thing, although you are
free to not like that either.


I don't like that because it is based upon a fallacy that white people
are entitiled to North America.


As RPO said, we had North America (actually, most of all the
Americas) because we took it, but we took it because we were as one
Indian said-correctly-we were better Indians than the Indians. It WAS
ours and we are losing it because of a failure of the will combined
with poisonous alien internal influence. We did things with it in
three long generations which the previous occupants hadn't in twenty
thousand years. We went from a few sparse settlements to Apollo XI in
three hundred years. The entire population of North America in 1300
AD was less than that of any of NYC's boroughs today.

If being white is so bad, give up your car, your electronics, all
clothes except animal skins, and go live on a reservation. But if you
are over 30 or so, don't even bother, just jump off the nearest cliff,
because that was the life expectancy.


*Show me a piece of high end saloon sold consumer gear that has an
interface that works as well as a Tek 2245b scope or a HP 8920 service
monitor.


The Sooloos.


Well yeah, it does work well. But it's still a personal computer in
drag with a (very good) embedded application. The 8920 on the other
hand, especially if you get the internal HP BASIC (yeah, go to
statements suck....) is seven or eight different instruments
integrated with a controller that does what it needs to do and nothing
else. It is to its competition, the IFR 1200 and 1500 series as a
real Ferrari is to a kit car resembling same with a Fiero chassis.
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Boon[_2_] Boon[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,425
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c

On Jun 23, 5:41*pm, Bret L wrote:
On Jun 20, 6:37*pm, Boon wrote:





On Jun 20, 1:19*am, Bret L wrote:


On Jun 16, 9:13*pm, Boon wrote:
.


There's a reason why you're alone and spend all your time spamming an
audio group with white supremacist posts. You're a whackjob. You are
totally out of touch with the world around you. People come on RAO and
see your posts and wonder "Who the **** is this guy and what is his
problem?" Well, you're a white supremacist and you're autistic, for
starters.


*You would not know a white supremacist if he bit you on the ass.


What a stupid thing to say. Most white supremacists are observed as
white supremacists becuase they espouse white supremacist beliefs.


*White supremacists are fairly rare.


No, they're not. They're as common as double-wides.

A white supremacist is someone
who says the white race is superior by some objective standard.


No, idiot. A white supremacist says whites are a superior race.
Usually they're not smart enough to offer an "objective standard."
They operate on fear, as do you.

I make
no such claim. I make the claim that whites are a distinctive, not
necessarily better, race and have the right to survive no differently
that of any other race. I don't want to exterminate any race. I want
to preserve one in particular, which harms no one else. You bet I
disdain miscegenation, although say if a black and a Chinese want to
intermarry it's none of my business. When it involves my people, I
will do what I can within the bounds of law and elementary decency to
deter or, failing that, isolate it. I deal with race mixers the way
Chrissie Hynde deals with carnivores. *I avoid them socially. I will
not award them, as Malice Rosenbomb said, the sanction of the victim.

*Can that be awkward ? Yes, it can.


How many species of human being are there? One. Those are your people,
idiot. And we're all thriving as a species.



You have probably never even MET an ideologically cogent white
supremacist, although admittedly they are not all that common.


I have met several. That's another naive and stupid thing to say. It's
like me saying to you, "you have never met a real liberal."


*A real liberal by what definition? A classical liberal? Yeah, I have
friends who are classical liberals. Extreme leftist liberals who can't
quite bring themselves to call themselves Marxists? Yeah, I had to put
up with their **** in school for years.


You're going off on a tangent because you can't answer the question
honestly.




I'm a white nationalist, which is a very different thing, although you are
free to not like that either.


I don't like that because it is based upon a fallacy that white people
are entitiled to North America.


*As RPO said, we had North America (actually, most of all the
Americas) because we took it, but we took it because we were as one
Indian said-correctly-we were better Indians than the Indians. It WAS
ours and we are losing it because of a failure of the will combined
with poisonous alien internal influence. We did things with it in
three long generations which the previous occupants hadn't in twenty
thousand years. We went from a few sparse settlements to Apollo XI in
three hundred years. *The entire population of North America in 1300
AD was less than that of any of NYC's boroughs today.


Which doesn't even answer the question...again. Your dumb argument
assumes that technology and manifest destiny are intertwined.


*If being white is so bad, give up your car, your electronics, all
clothes except animal skins, and go live on a reservation. But if you
are over 30 or so, don't even bother, just jump off the nearest cliff,
because that was the life expectancy.


No one said being white is bad. But it's funny how you think in "black
and white"...another symptom of your autism.




*Show me a piece of high end saloon sold consumer gear that has an
interface that works as well as a Tek 2245b scope or a HP 8920 service
monitor.


The Sooloos.


*Well yeah, it does work well.


So that should be the end of the discussion. But wait:

But it's still a personal computer in
drag with a (very good) embedded application.


It's an ergonomic dream.

The 8920 on the other
hand, especially if you get the internal HP BASIC (yeah, go to
statements suck....) is seven or eight different instruments
integrated with a controller that does what it needs to do and nothing
else. *It is to its competition, the IFR 1200 and 1500 series as a
real Ferrari is to a kit car resembling same with a Fiero chassis.


Now you're going off on another stupid tangent. Just say "You're right
and I'm wrong" and move on.

  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c

"Boon" wrote in message


There's a reason why you're alone and spend all your time
spamming an
audio group with white supremacist posts. You're a
whackjob. You are
totally out of touch with the world around you. People
come on RAO and
see your posts and wonder "Who the **** is this guy and
what is his
problem?" Well, you're a white supremacist and you're
autistic, for
starters.

You don't make sense to normal people. Autistic people
rarely do.


If irony killed!

Posting in RAO easily meets any reasonable definition of being alone.




  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On Jun 20, 2:19 am, Bret L wrote:



. You have probably never even MET an ideologically
cogent white supremacist,


undoubtedly true, because there ain't no such thing.


Yup.

ideologically cogent white supremacist

is obviously an oxymoron.


  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c

On Jun 26, 4:22*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



There's a reason why you're alone and spend all your time
spamming an
audio group with white supremacist posts. You're a
whackjob. You are
totally out of touch with the world around you. People
come on RAO and
see your posts and wonder "Who the **** is this guy and
what is his
problem?" Well, you're a white supremacist and you're
autistic, for
starters.


You don't make sense to normal people. Autistic people
rarely do.


If irony killed!

Posting in RAO easily meets any reasonable definition of being alone.


Thoothie let you out of your cage?
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Boon[_2_] Boon[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,425
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c

On Jun 26, 3:22*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



There's a reason why you're alone and spend all your time
spamming an
audio group with white supremacist posts. You're a
whackjob. You are
totally out of touch with the world around you. People
come on RAO and
see your posts and wonder "Who the **** is this guy and
what is his
problem?" Well, you're a white supremacist and you're
autistic, for
starters.


You don't make sense to normal people. Autistic people
rarely do.


If irony killed!


I make perfect sense to Sue and Pastor Matt, don't I.


Posting in RAO easily meets any reasonable definition of being alone.


Is that why you wasted more than a decade of your life posting on it?
If irony killed, indeed.

  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Boon[_2_] Boon[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,425
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c

On Jun 26, 8:53*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 26, 4:22*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:





"Boon" wrote in message




There's a reason why you're alone and spend all your time
spamming an
audio group with white supremacist posts. You're a
whackjob. You are
totally out of touch with the world around you. People
come on RAO and
see your posts and wonder "Who the **** is this guy and
what is his
problem?" Well, you're a white supremacist and you're
autistic, for
starters.


You don't make sense to normal people. Autistic people
rarely do.


If irony killed!


Posting in RAO easily meets any reasonable definition of being alone.


Thoothie let you out of your cage?


For Arny, posting on RAO is like running onto the freeway with his
eyes closed. He's probably going to get run over, but it's the closest
he gets to actually having an exciting life.
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
MiNe 109 MiNe 109 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,597
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c

In article
,
Boon wrote:

On Jun 26, 3:22*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



There's a reason why you're alone and spend all your time
spamming an
audio group with white supremacist posts. You're a
whackjob. You are
totally out of touch with the world around you. People
come on RAO and
see your posts and wonder "Who the **** is this guy and
what is his
problem?" Well, you're a white supremacist and you're
autistic, for
starters.


You don't make sense to normal people. Autistic people
rarely do.


If irony killed!


I make perfect sense to Sue and Pastor Matt, don't I.


Posting in RAO easily meets any reasonable definition of being alone.


Is that why you wasted more than a decade of your life posting on it?
If irony killed, indeed.


What does responding to a ten-day-old post mean in Arny-land?

Stephen


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c

On Jun 27, 8:28*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,



*Boon wrote:
On Jun 26, 3:22 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message




There's a reason why you're alone and spend all your time
spamming an
audio group with white supremacist posts. You're a
whackjob. You are
totally out of touch with the world around you. People
come on RAO and
see your posts and wonder "Who the **** is this guy and
what is his
problem?" Well, you're a white supremacist and you're
autistic, for
starters.


You don't make sense to normal people. Autistic people
rarely do.


If irony killed!


I make perfect sense to Sue and Pastor Matt, don't I.


Posting in RAO easily meets any reasonable definition of being alone.


Is that why you wasted more than a decade of your life posting on it?
If irony killed, indeed.


What does responding to a ten-day-old post mean in Arny-land?


It means nine days of Thoothie not letting him near a pc.
  #27   Report Post  
Stager Stager is offline
Junior Member
 
Posts: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bret L View Post
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.

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 have a Marantz 7 - and it sounds wonderful.

Stock, it is a very musical, sweet sounding preamp, and combined with tube amps from Marantz, Mac, etc; and speakers like vintage Klipsch, Altec, JBL, you'll have a very seductive but not entirely accurate sounding system. That is what Asian audiophiles enjoy and why they pay the big bucks, and if you ever had the pleasure of listening to such a system, you would understand why.

But mine is anything but stock.

First, Larry Smith of PAC installed solid state power supply regulation.
I then proceeded to POOGE it (Audio Amateur 1/81), and installed Teflon bypass caps. Carbon comp resistors were replaced with carefully matched carbon films. And the output caps, too small for lo-z solid state amps (or in my case, a modded Rane electronic crossover) are now 4.7 mF.

This modification was actually recommended by Saul Marantz in a letter to Absolute Sound. He said, " If used to drive input of 100K Ohms or less, there is a loss of low bass due to the .22 mF output coupling cap. This can be increased by adding 1 mF mylars in parallel..."

Last edited by Stager : July 4th 10 at 02:58 AM
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c


Stock, it is a very musical, sweet sounding preamp, and combined with
tube amps from Marantz, Mac, etc; and speakers like vintage Klipsch,
Altec, JBL, you'll have a very seductive but not entirely accurate
sounding system. That is what Asian audiophiles enjoy and why they pay
the big bucks, and if you ever had the pleasure of listening to such a
system, *you would understand why.

But mine is anything but stock.

First, Larry Smith of PAC installed solid state power supply
regulation.
I then proceeded to POOGE it (Audio Amateur 1/81), and installed Teflon
bypass caps. Carbon comp resistors were replaced with carefully matched
carbon films. And the output caps, too small for lo-z solid state amps
(or in my case, a modded Rane electronic crossover) are now 4.7 mF.

This modification was actually recommended by Saul Marantz Smith in a
letter to Absolute Sound. He said, " If used to drive input of 100K Ohms
or less, there is a loss of low bass due to the .22 mF output coupling
cap. This can be increased by adding 1 mF mylars in parallel..."


Oriental listeners listen with their eyes and see with their ears.
It's all status, really. There are i am sure exceptions but this is in
the main true.

POOGE was a great series and TAA was at its zenith in those days.
These schmucks have no idea just how good it was.

  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Boon[_2_] Boon[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,425
Default In praise of the Marantz 7c

On Jul 6, 7:52*am, Bret L wrote:
Stock, it is a very musical, sweet sounding preamp, and combined with
tube amps from Marantz, Mac, etc; and speakers like vintage Klipsch,
Altec, JBL, you'll have a very seductive but not entirely accurate
sounding system. That is what Asian audiophiles enjoy and why they pay
the big bucks, and if you ever had the pleasure of listening to such a
system, *you would understand why.


But mine is anything but stock.


First, Larry Smith of PAC installed solid state power supply
regulation.
I then proceeded to POOGE it (Audio Amateur 1/81), and installed Teflon
bypass caps. Carbon comp resistors were replaced with carefully matched
carbon films. And the output caps, too small for lo-z solid state amps
(or in my case, a modded Rane electronic crossover) are now 4.7 mF.


This modification was actually recommended by Saul Marantz Smith in a
letter to Absolute Sound. He said, " If used to drive input of 100K Ohms
or less, there is a loss of low bass due to the .22 mF output coupling
cap. This can be increased by adding 1 mF mylars in parallel..."


*Oriental listeners listen with their eyes and see with their ears.
It's all status, really. There are i am sure exceptions but this is in
the main true.


You're so full of ****.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
In praise of older systems Adrian Tuddenham Pro Audio 21 September 30th 08 02:46 PM
Now let us praise Otto Herbert Schmitt Andre Jute Vacuum Tubes 4 December 29th 07 10:37 PM
RNC Praise mcp6453 Pro Audio 40 July 29th 05 03:54 AM
praise for Apple Tech support Joe Egan Pro Audio 0 March 5th 05 04:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:42 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"