[Bret L]

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.

[John Stone]

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.

[Boon[_2_]]

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.

[Bret L]

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.

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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.

[Bret L]

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.

[Boon[_2_]]

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.

[John Stone]

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.

[Stager]

Originally Posted by Bret L

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..."

[Bret L]

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.

[Boon[_2_]]

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 ****.