[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, October 20, 1998 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, David Anderson wrote:
Hi,

I don't want to start a price-flame war, but I'm simply curious as to why
Marantz 7 preamps command such high prices compared to other tube preamps
of their era.

I've looked at a schematic for the Marantz preamp, and it appears to me to
be a well-implemented, but fairly conventional, design. I have seen one
opened up for service, before, though I've never heard one in operation,
and the only unusual thing I noticed was the placement of the tubes. In
fact, it doesn't seem to differ too much in terms of circuit design from
the McIntosh C22 preamp, which I've seen offered at somewhat lower prices..

In fact, for $2-3K, it seems to me that you could build a really good
preamp--one that had far fewer switches in the signal path than the
Marantz 7 and one that had things like a stepped attenuator volume
control. For that matter, it wouldn't be hard to duplicate the Marantz
design. Power amps are harder to copy due to the output transformers, but
preamps are generally built from commonly available parts.

So, are the high prices just due to collectors value--the thrill one gets
from owning something with a certain name and number on it--or is there
something else that I'm missing?

Regards,
David Anderson

--
I refuse to accept any unauthorized or unsolicited E-mail
communications.

The sending of an unsolicited E-mail communication shall
be proof that the sender has agreed, by action, to send $500.00
US/ certified funds to me, prior to any unsolicited or unauthorized
transmission.

"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine.
By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited
advertisement to such equipment.
By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500,
whichever is greater, for each violation."

hello, marantz curious
I use to wonder the same thing myself, a while back. Constantly watched the prices rise, back when they were going for about 1k+ having various tube gear.
I just thought name brand valuation, even looked at a few that sounded awful. but being a newbie at tube gear there was alot i didn't know.
So a year or 2 later becoming more familiar with them, seeing the price of the marantz 7 tube more than double I bought one, everyone of them I auditioned sounded bad. But now I knew all old tube gear sounds bad until you do minor tweaks, bought cheaper tube stuff to experiment with. Almost every piece after tweaking sounds better than whats currently on the solid state market.
Anyway bought one figured i would sell it.
After repair/tweaks, I was blown away by the sound + many other nuances.
It was like a clear window, mind you I was using a Luxman cl-35 preamp already,
plus prodigy otl amps, bass is sharp not muddy, highs are crystal clear, mids just right.
So ended up keeping it and selling luxman
If you hear it you would understand.

just my 2 bits

[Lord Valve]

wrote:

On Tuesday, October 20, 1998 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, David Anderson wrote:
Hi,

I don't want to start a price-flame war, but I'm simply curious as to why
Marantz 7 preamps command such high prices compared to other tube preamps
of their era.

I've looked at a schematic for the Marantz preamp, and it appears to me to
be a well-implemented, but fairly conventional, design. I have seen one
opened up for service, before, though I've never heard one in operation,
and the only unusual thing I noticed was the placement of the tubes. In
fact, it doesn't seem to differ too much in terms of circuit design from
the McIntosh C22 preamp, which I've seen offered at somewhat lower prices.

In fact, for $2-3K, it seems to me that you could build a really good
preamp--one that had far fewer switches in the signal path than the
Marantz 7 and one that had things like a stepped attenuator volume
control. For that matter, it wouldn't be hard to duplicate the Marantz
design. Power amps are harder to copy due to the output transformers, but
preamps are generally built from commonly available parts.

So, are the high prices just due to collectors value--the thrill one gets
from owning something with a certain name and number on it--or is there
something else that I'm missing?

Regards,
David Anderson

--
I refuse to accept any unauthorized or unsolicited E-mail
communications.

The sending of an unsolicited E-mail communication shall
be proof that the sender has agreed, by action, to send $500.00
US/ certified funds to me, prior to any unsolicited or unauthorized
transmission.

"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine.
By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited
advertisement to such equipment.
By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500,
whichever is greater, for each violation."

hello, marantz curious
I use to wonder the same thing myself, a while back. Constantly watched the prices rise, back when they were going for about 1k+ having various tube gear.
I just thought name brand valuation, even looked at a few that sounded awful. but being a newbie at tube gear there was alot i didn't know.
So a year or 2 later becoming more familiar with them, seeing the price of the marantz 7 tube more than double I bought one, everyone of them I auditioned sounded bad. But now I knew all old tube gear sounds bad until you do minor tweaks, bought cheaper tube stuff to experiment with. Almost every piece after tweaking sounds better than whats currently on the solid state market.
Anyway bought one figured i would sell it.
After repair/tweaks, I was blown away by the sound + many other nuances.
It was like a clear window, mind you I was using a Luxman cl-35 preamp already,
plus prodigy otl amps, bass is sharp not muddy, highs are crystal clear, mids just right.
So ended up keeping it and selling luxman
If you hear it you would understand.

just my 2 bits

Hey, Rocket scientist -

You just replied to a post that's SIXTEEN YEARS OLD.

Learn to read headers, schmuck.

[Frank Lucas]

What's wrong in replying to a 16 yo post?

Frank