Marantz 240 amp? how good?
MrHONESTY
Trevor Wilson
"MrHONESTY" <Geo...@zxmail.com> wrote in message
news:2Pn15.18$Kr1....@news.uswest.net...
> Hello all. What are your opinions of this amp?
>
**For it's time (ca. 1974), it was very good. For 2000, nope. I rebuilt one,
recently and was dissappointed in it's performance. The 1200B (same output
stage), showed me how identically specc'd amps, could sound very, very
different, way back then. Still, for what they can be purchased for, used,
they are a grunty old beast. The later models were far more reliable and
easier to service.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
equipment ever perpetrated on the earth. Horrible, horrible,
horrible. I "upgraded" from a Model 22 receiver. What a mistake. The
first one would intermittently crackle at an extremely loud volume,
intermittently -- say every 10 hours or so. I had it in the shop and
at Marantz at least 5 times before they replaced it with its cousin, a
250M (a repackaged 240 with different faceplate and meters - same
guts). The 250M didn't crackle, but, like the 240, but it sounded
really bad compared to the Model 22.
I finally got my money back on the 250M when I bought a Marantz 510.
This is actually a very decent amp. It's not a Levinson, mind you,
but it's solid sounding and very dependable. Mine's about 20 some odd
years old and it works better than the day I bought it. The 510 is my
backup amp, should I ever need to send my main amp in for service
(which has not happened in the last 10 years).
If you need an amp for spare parts or an electronics project, get the
240 (but don't pay more than $10 bucks for it). You're much better
off with a 510 -- there are several for sale in the newsgroups. I
don't plan on selling mine any time soon.
My main amp these days is an Audio Research D79A -- if you can find
one of these I guarantee you'll have a smile from ear to ear!
Eric
MrHONESTY
these days are a bit more than I am looking to spend at the moment. I am
currently looking at several Citations, the Phase Linear 400 (I have the
2000 preamp) and a Sumo Polaris or Andromeda.
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com wrote in message ...
MrHONESTY
Trevor Wilson wrote in message ...
>
>"MrHONESTY" <Geo...@zxmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2Pn15.18$Kr1....@news.uswest.net...
>> Hello all. What are your opinions of this amp?
>>
>
>**For it's time (ca. 1974), it was very good. For 2000, nope. I rebuilt
one,
>recently and was dissappointed in it's performance. The 1200B (same output
>stage), showed me how identically specc'd amps, could sound very, very
>different, way back then. Still, for what they can be purchased for, used,
>they are a grunty old beast. The later models were far more reliable and
>easier to service.
>
>
>Trevor Wilson
>www.rageaudio.com.au
>
>
>
>
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
amp, was used a lot in sound reinforcement... Much better choice than
the Marantz... I am not familiar with the others.
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:08:42 -0700, "MrHONESTY" <Geo...@zxmail.com>
wrote:
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
they were discontinued rather quickly. Replaced by the 250, if I
recall. The mention of the 240 still sends shivers down my spine, you
have no idea what that crackling noise was like -- awful, just awful.
Eric
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:10:35 -0700, "MrHONESTY" <Geo...@zxmail.com>
wrote:
Tony Loban
>I never had a 1200B -- but the 240's were very problematic and
>I think
>they were discontinued rather quickly. Replaced by the 250, if
>I
>recall. The mention of the 240 still sends shivers down my
>spine, you
>have no idea what that crackling noise was like -- awful, just
>awful.
actually, the 250(as opposed to the 250m) preceded the 240,
which was a 250 sans meters. the two pieces 'co-existed' in the
marantz line for a year or two.
in 1972, i replaced a marantz model 16(the 80/80 piece, not the
100/100 16b)with a model 250. the 250 was much better than the
16 was when it was run hard, to the point where there was some
clipping at peak levels. i owned the 250 for some time, without
incident, then sold it to a friend of a friend, who used it,
trouble free, for many years(he may still have it).
afaik, the 250m was a somewhat different amp, though i've not
had first hand experience with it.
i'm somewhat surprised at trevor's comments re:a 1200b. marantz
maintained that a 1200 was a slightly simpler version of a 3300
preamp and a 100wpc version of a 240/250 built on one chassis.
was a 1200b significantly different?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
dennis deacon
components as can the Ampzillas from GAS. IMO, you should forget about the Phase
Linear - terrible sound.
MrHONESTY wrote:
> Eric, I would love to have a 510, but the prices these amps are going for
> these days are a bit more than I am looking to spend at the moment. I am
> currently looking at several Citations, the Phase Linear 400 (I have the
> 2000 preamp) and a Sumo Polaris or Andromeda.
> ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com wrote in message ...
> >I had two of these -- they were among the worse pieces of electronic
> >equipment ever perpetrated on the earth. Horrible, horrible,
> >horrible. I "upgraded" from a Model 22 receiver. What a mistake. The
> >first one would intermittently crackle at an extremely loud volume,
> >intermittently -- say every 10 hours or so. I had it in the shop and
> >at Marantz at least 5 times before they replaced it with its cousin, a
> >250M (a repackaged 240 with different faceplate and meters - same
> >guts). The 250M didn't crackle, but, like the 240, but it sounded
> >really bad compared to the Model 22.
> >
> >I finally got my money back on the 250M when I bought a Marantz 510.
> >This is actually a very decent amp. It's not a Levinson, mind you,
> >but it's solid sounding and very dependable. Mine's about 20 some odd
> >years old and it works better than the day I bought it. The 510 is my
> >backup amp, should I ever need to send my main amp in for service
> >(which has not happened in the last 10 years).
> >
> >If you need an amp for spare parts or an electronics project, get the
> >240 (but don't pay more than $10 bucks for it). You're much better
> >off with a 510 -- there are several for sale in the newsgroups. I
> >don't plan on selling mine any time soon.
> >
> >My main amp these days is an Audio Research D79A -- if you can find
> >one of these I guarantee you'll have a smile from ear to ear!
> >
> >Eric
> >
> >On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:52:07 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> ><tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >>
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
wrote:
>i'm somewhat surprised at trevor's comments re:a 1200b. marantz
>maintained that a 1200 was a slightly simpler version of a 3300
>preamp and a 100wpc version of a 240/250 built on one chassis.
>was a 1200b significantly different?
I take it back... I have a 1200... I thought he was talking about a
Power Amp. I've got a 1200 Preamp, slightly modified by a colleague
with a sub-sonic low-pass filter to minimize sub-sonic feedback, which
really cleaned things up a lot. I liked it... it worked really well
for a long time. I retired the unit when I got my Krell PAM-5.
I tried to power it on recently. The power switch has that thermal
"delay" switch -- well I think that the switch has failed in mine, I
did not hear the "click" and it didn't power on... Those switches are
mechanical and are prone to "sticking" if they're not used. A little
electrical contact cleaner might fix it -- or else I can just replace
the switch. Someday I may fix it and sell it.
It was "similar" to the 3300 in that it had one bank of slider tone
controls instead of two banks (one for each channel). It came out
somewhere between the 3300 and the 3600 if my memory serves me
correctly.
It didn't have the low distortion "specs" of the 3300 and was a much
smaller form-factor that the 3300.
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
The 250M was definitely a better unit than the 240, though neither
came close to the 510/510M.
Eric
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:21:26 -0700, Tony Loban <tony_...@email.com>
wrote:
>
Steve Zipser
tony_...@email.com says...
> in 1972, i replaced a marantz model 16(the 80/80 piece, not the
> 100/100 16b)with a model 250. the 250 was much better than the
> 16 was when it was run hard, to the point where there was some
> clipping at peak levels. i owned the 250 for some time, without
> incident, then sold it to a friend of a friend, who used it,
> trouble free, for many years(he may still have it).
>
Interesting - I found the dual mono 16 to be much better - and
coincidentally, it was the last Marantz piece designed by Saul Marantz.
Steve Zipser
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc http://sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
Conrad Johnson Cal Audio Labs Spectron Parasound PASS Labs Gallo Davis
Audible Illusions Straightwire Niles Oracle Faroudja Rega Benz-Micro
Dunlavy Lexicon Volksamp VUTEC EAD CleanLines Monster RUNCO ESP PS Audio
Nakamichi Genelec Solid Steel Camelot Salamander Audio Logic Seleco PSB
Tony Loban
----snip----
>in 1972, i replaced a marantz model 16(the 80/80 piece, not the
>100/100 16b)with a model 250. the 250 was much better than the
>16 was when it was run hard, to the point where there was some
>clipping at peak levels. i owned the 250 for some time, without
>incident, then sold it to a friend of a friend, who used it,
>trouble free, for many years(he may still have it).
----snip----
steve zipser sez:
>Interesting - I found the dual mono 16 to be much better - and
>coincidentally, it was the last Marantz piece designed by Saul
>Marantz.
in what way(s) did you find the 16 better?
ime, the only real difference was when the amps were run hard,
to the point of clipping on peaks. the 250 sounded *much* more
powerful in these cases. it seemed as if the 16 just 'fell
apart' when it reached clip level. a friend had a 16b, and it
seemed to have the same problem.
i agree that the construction of the 16/16b was better. the
250/240 was built, as i recall, on the chassis of the cheaper,
60wpc model 32.
Trevor Wilson
<ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:v1icks41b1vcvdvj9...@4ax.com...
> I had two of these -- they were among the worse pieces of electronic
> equipment ever perpetrated on the earth. Horrible, horrible,
> horrible. I "upgraded" from a Model 22 receiver. What a mistake. The
> first one would intermittently crackle at an extremely loud volume,
> intermittently -- say every 10 hours or so. I had it in the shop and
> at Marantz at least 5 times before they replaced it with its cousin, a
> 250M (a repackaged 240 with different faceplate and meters - same
> guts). The 250M didn't crackle, but, like the 240, but it sounded
> really bad compared to the Model 22.
**I never heard a 22, so I can't comment. The 240 was a superior product, to
most of it's contemporary competition, though (even allowing for your ONE
faulty unit). As I was service manager for Marantz (Australia), during the
mid/late 70's, I have wide experience with these units. The noise problem,
you experiences, was rare, but not unheard of.
>
> I finally got my money back on the 250M when I bought a Marantz 510.
> This is actually a very decent amp. It's not a Levinson, mind you,
> but it's solid sounding and very dependable. Mine's about 20 some odd
> years old and it works better than the day I bought it. The 510 is my
> backup amp, should I ever need to send my main amp in for service
> (which has not happened in the last 10 years).
**This tells me a great deal of your listening preferences. The 510 was an
extremely reliable product. It was compact and well thought out. It was also
the worst sounding (by a considerable margin) American built Marantz
product, ever set loose on the listening public. It had a nasty habit of
losing it's damping factor, at clipping, thus demolishing large numbers of
bass drivers in the process. I used every top of the range Marantz product,
in my system, back then. The 510/M would be useful as a boat anchor, but not
for listening to. The 510/M replaced the mighty Marantz 500. A truly awesome
product, at the time. Extraordinarily unreliable, though. Mine is still in
pieces, in the workshop. I may rebuild it, one day.
>
> If you need an amp for spare parts or an electronics project, get the
> 240 (but don't pay more than $10 bucks for it). You're much better
> off with a 510 -- there are several for sale in the newsgroups. I
> don't plan on selling mine any time soon.
**I suggest you listen to almost any, decent amplifier, in comparison to
your 510. You may be surprised to hear what a range of sonic problems the
510 had.
>
> My main amp these days is an Audio Research D79A -- if you can find
> one of these I guarantee you'll have a smile from ear to ear!
**Agreed. An excellent old amp.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
> Does this mean that your vote is on a 1200B? ;- )
> Trevor Wilson wrote in message ...
**Er, no. The 240/3300 were slightly more powerful and slightly better
sounding. The 1200B, however, was a very cost effective solution, for a
budding hi fi enthusiast, back in 1974. I had access to the entire Marantz
range and chose the 1200B as the best, most cost effective solution, for my
system. The circuitry used in the 1200B was virtually identical that used
in the 240/3300 separates.
I later upgraded to a rebuilt Dynaco tube preamp and a Marantz 500. Mmmmmm.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
"Tony Loban" <tony_...@email.com> wrote in message
news:0001f4d1...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com...
> eric wrote:
>
> >I never had a 1200B -- but the 240's were very problematic and
> >I think
> >they were discontinued rather quickly. Replaced by the 250, if
> >I
> >recall. The mention of the 240 still sends shivers down my
> >spine, you
> >have no idea what that crackling noise was like -- awful, just
> >awful.
>
> which was a 250 sans meters. the two pieces 'co-existed' in the
> marantz line for a year or two.
**Correct.
>
> in 1972, i replaced a marantz model 16(the 80/80 piece, not the
> 100/100 16b)with a model 250. the 250 was much better than the
> 16 was when it was run hard, to the point where there was some
> clipping at peak levels. i owned the 250 for some time, without
> incident, then sold it to a friend of a friend, who used it,
> trouble free, for many years(he may still have it).
>
> afaik, the 250m was a somewhat different amp, though i've not
> had first hand experience with it.
**Correct. The 250M employed many improvments, in quite a few areas, over
the 250 and the early 240 amps. Reliability was improved significantly and
sonics were improved somewhat.
>
> i'm somewhat surprised at trevor's comments re:a 1200b. marantz
> maintained that a 1200 was a slightly simpler version of a 3300
> preamp and a 100wpc version of a 240/250 built on one chassis.
> was a 1200b significantly different?
**Nope. The 1200B was very, very similar sounding to the 240/3300. The
circuitry is virtually identical, save slightly lower Voltages on the output
devices (and consequently a lower power output). Which is why I purchased
one. I needed a cost effective solution to my burgeoning hi fi habit. If I
had the money, I would have purchased the 240/3300. The 1200B filled the
bill admirably, until I purchased my Marantz 500 and modded a Dynaco tube
preamp.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
>
> Trevor, i was confused as well. from what you wrote in your
> first post in this thread, i had the impression that you felt
> the amp section of the 1200b was *better* than a 240.
>
**Yes. My earlier post was poorly written. I can see how that would appear.
To re-state: The 240/3300 was superior (slightly) to the 1200B. The 1200B
was significantly superior to most of it's contemporary competition, even
though that competition may have possessed identical specs.
Sorry for the confusion.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Tony Loban
>Trevor, i was confused as well. from what you wrote in your
>first post in this thread, i had the impression that you felt
>the amp section of the 1200b was *better* than a 240.
Trevor Wilson;
>**Yes. My earlier post was poorly written. I can see how that
>would appear.
>To re-state: The 240/3300 was superior (slightly) to the 1200B.
>The 1200B
>was significantly superior to most of it's contemporary
>competition, even
>though that competition may have possessed identical specs.
i thought that perhaps you had discovered some aspect of a
1200/1200b that i had missed.
>Sorry for the confusion.
not at all, always a pleasure.
Tony Loban
>Does this mean that your vote is on a 1200B? ;- )
Trevor Wilson says:
>**Er, no. The 240/3300 were slightly more powerful and slightly
>better
>sounding. The 1200B, however, was a very cost
>effective .solution, for a
>budding hi fi enthusiast, back in 1974. I had access to the
>entire Marantz
>range and chose the 1200B as the best, most cost effective
>solution, for my
>system. The circuitry used in the 1200B was virtually
>identical that used
>in the 240/3300 separates.
>
>I later upgraded to a rebuilt Dynaco tube preamp and a Marantz
500. Mmmmmm.
Trevor, i was confused as well. from what you wrote in your
first post in this thread, i had the impression that you felt
the amp section of the 1200b was *better* than a 240.
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
the time. The second time I sent the 240 back, they swapped with
another one. The second one also exhibited similar characteristics.
The dealer got a factory concession and bought mine back by swapping
it for a 250 + some amount of change for the difference in price
between the two models.
As a Marantz engineering employee told me, at the time, it had to do
with "pitting of the mica insulation of the power transistors" that
was causing the crackling noise. Mine was not unique according to
him. Perhaps the export models were spec'd differently for different
voltages.
Now, I don't know enough about electronics to tell you that what they
told me was true or not... I do know that I had two 240's that would
make an incredibly loud crackling/white noise at sustained high volume
levels until I turned the unit off. This was extremely disconcerting,
not to mention the fact that it could be quite messy, having to change
your pants at odd times during listening sessions. It would typically
scare the bejeebers out of people. Turning it back on would not
immediately reproduce the noise, which made troubleshooting very
difficult.
Now, that said, I just can't agree that it was a superior product.
Additionally, the sound was not that great, in my opinion.
Eric
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>**This tells me a great deal of your listening preferences. The 510 was an
>extremely reliable product. It was compact and well thought out. It was also
>the worst sounding (by a considerable margin) American built Marantz
>product, ever set loose on the listening public. It had a nasty habit of
>losing it's damping factor, at clipping, thus demolishing large numbers of
>bass drivers in the process. I used every top of the range Marantz product,
>in my system, back then. The 510/M would be useful as a boat anchor, but not
>for listening to. The 510/M replaced the mighty Marantz 500. A truly awesome
>product, at the time. Extraordinarily unreliable, though. Mine is still in
>pieces, in the workshop. I may rebuild it, one day.
You are largely correct in your assessment with only a little more
explanation needed. About the time I got the 510, I replaced my
infinite baffle Marantz Imperial 3's with a pair of JBL 4330 Studio
Monitors (90db at 1 watt at 10 feet). Since I had a small listening
room at the time (I still do, even now) I rarely got beyond .6 watt --
sometimes up to 10 watts -- but rarely more than that. Within my
listening range it sounded a lot better than the 240 or the 250.
I don't recall any major problems with low end bass control through
the 15's. Now, keep in mind these were 16 ohm woofers, but it
combined very nicely with the JBL's. Some years later I hooked the
510 up to a pair of Monitor Audio's. It sounded very good. Again, not
talking KRELL here but I A/B'ed it carefully against an ADCOM that
night, and once I was convinced that it was no comparison, I proceeded
to have a delightful time with a couple music lover friends and a
bunch of vinyl, champaigne and espresso.
One unfortunate aspect of the 510/M is that it was also marketed as a
sound reinforcement amp. It had the 2-speed fan for that purpose. I
ran a pro-sound shop at the time and your assessment is correct...
pushed to its limits, the 510 can get pretty nasty. Whether or not it
melts voice coils I'll trust in your experience, but it definitely was
better behaved at lower output levels below clipping.
I'd heard that the 500 was a great sound amp, I saw one once, but
never heard it. I guess you have also revealed something about your
preferences in that your 500 is in pieces and the 240 was outstanding.
I'd bet you own a Ferrari?
Eric
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>**I suggest you listen to almost any, decent amplifier, in comparison to
>your 510. You may be surprised to hear what a range of sonic problems the
>510 had.
Actually I did... had lots of opportunities to do that since I was in
the retail side of the business (but not a Marantz dealer). At the
time there was a proliferation of designs, let's see if we can
remember some of them in that price range ($900 if I recall):
Was it BGW with the square wire wound transformers?
Phase Linear - the amp with no power supply?
OK - just joking. I went to ListenUp in Denver and heard a set of
Maggies played through a 500 wpc Levinson power amp, a Levinson
preamp, a Grace 707 tonearm, Joe Grado cartridge and a nondescript
belt drive turntable (can't remember the the name, but nothing fancy,
not a Thorens or a Linn) Now THAT WAS AN EXPERIENCE!!!!
>
>>
>> My main amp these days is an Audio Research D79A -- if you can find
>> one of these I guarantee you'll have a smile from ear to ear!
>
>**Agreed. An excellent old amp.
OK, you jumped the gun on the first suggestion, and yes, the D79A is
an excellent old amp... as Monty Python would say: "And now for
something completely different" ...
...a suitable replacement for the 510 :)
I've enjoyed your feedback!
Eric
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>**I never heard a 22, so I can't comment.
Little did I know how good the Marantz Model 22 was. I gave it to my
ex-girlfriend after she ran off with some other guy. I did not have a
real appreciation for the Model 22 until I went to replace it. The
same cannot be said of the girlfriend :)
Now that I got the humor out of the way! The Marantz Model 22 Receiver
was SO GOOD that Marantz decided to name all of their subsequent
receivers after it, so you got the 2270, 2245, etc. etc. etc.
The 22 had 40 wpc and just plain rocked! I have long since lost track
of the ex-girlfriend, but I really miss the Model 22. The new ones
just weren't as good.
Eric
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
Steve Zipser
says...
> Which brings us to the model 15. Is it a good amp, and how does it compare
> to the model 16?
The 16 was a successor to the 15 - it was a dual mono design (the 15
was not) and the 16 was a wee bit more powerful - it was clearly a sonic
improvement though.
When I was stationed in Iceland, in 1969, I bought a Sony TA-6060F
receiver, a Tandberg 64X tape deck (I still have it) a pair of
Rectilinear III loudspeakers, and a Garrard SL-72B turntable.
The following year, while stationed in Virginia Beach, I went and
visited a stereo store in Connecticut called Carston Studio (maybe it was
in Danbury, but I do not remember). I replaced the Sony receiver with a
Kenwood KT-8300 tuner, a Dynaco PAT-4 preamplifier, and a Marantz Model
16 power amplifier. The new separates were far better than the Sony
receiver.
Two years later, I sold the tuner and the preamp, and bought a Marantz
Model 23 Tuner/Preamp. I was a little surprised to find that I did not
enjoy the sound as much as I used to - but figured it was just me. Later
that year, I bought a pair of LWE-1A Accoustron servo feedback speakers
- which were dramatically better than the Rectilinears. This
necessitated the installation of a "Clip" kit so the feedback loop of the
amplifier would be connected to a back EMF sensing circuit of the
speakers. The combo was good - but the best was yet to come.
One weekend, in 1974, my Marantz 23 went down, and I didn't want to be
without music. Well, it seemed that my trusty old Tandberg 64X (which
was a tube reel to reel tape recorder - and the best sounding recorder of
all time!) has a volume controlled main output, so I hooked this straight
up to the Marantz 16 amplifier. The difference was so fucking dramatic I
was shocked! The level of improvement was absolutely titanic - and so I
sold that crappy Marantz 23 (the 22 was just as shitty sounding for
whoever sang its praises earlier today).
At this point, I kept the Model 16 as a spare and bought a Marantz 2325
receiver - which was a high powered (125wpc) receiver with a built in
dolby circuit - for both taping and for FM playback. It was a good piece
but never made me happy.
After much searching, in 1977, I purchased a CM Labs CC-3 preamplifier
- the first high end, modern MOSFET, really good sounding preamplifier on
the market - I coupled this to a CM-912 Power amplifier - the first high
quality, great sounding, MOSFET, high-powered power amplifier on the
market - and I was in sonic heaven. The Marantz 16 was finally out of my
life after an 8 year run.
Cheers
Zip
> Steve Zipser wrote in message ...
> >Interesting - I found the dual mono 16 to be much better - and
> >coincidentally, it was the last Marantz piece designed by Saul Marantz.
MrHONESTY
to the model 16?
MrHONESTY
systems, I have to say that the 400 is a very revealing amp of the quality
of components in the chain, mainly speakers. For instance, When I hooked my
then brand new JBL 4315's up to it, it made both my flagship Yamaha receiver
and its former owners Marantz 510+3600 combo sound "reproduced" in
comparison. I have also heard it sound bad through a number of less than
transparent speakers, mainly do to the speakers flawed treble reproduction.
I believe that my Polk SDA 2B's will "reveal" just how good this amp is,
especially after the proper electrolytic upgrade (60,000uF). ;- )
dennis deacon wrote in message <3946137C...@west.net>...
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:51:55 -0400, Steve Zipser
<z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>(the 22 was just as shitty sounding for
>whoever sang its praises earlier today)
That was me... Obviously, you never drank enuf Tequila while listening
to a Model 22.
Eric
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
wish I knew you circa 1973 or whenever it was I had that amp... you
probably could have fixed it... you have no idea how hard it seemed to
be for Marantz to get these amps corrected. I can't even remember the
number of weeks they were out of service... they tried and tried. Who
would have thought to call Australia?
Regards,
Eric
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 03:24:08 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
><ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
>news:3lrdks0ggvq52lp3d...@4ax.com...
>> As you state, the problems with the 240 were recognized by Marantz at
>> the time. The second time I sent the 240 back, they swapped with
>> another one. The second one also exhibited similar characteristics.
>> The dealer got a factory concession and bought mine back by swapping
>> it for a 250 + some amount of change for the difference in price
>> between the two models.
>>
>> As a Marantz engineering employee told me, at the time, it had to do
>> with "pitting of the mica insulation of the power transistors" that
>> was causing the crackling noise. Mine was not unique according to
>> him. Perhaps the export models were spec'd differently for different
>> voltages.
>
>**I doubt it. The 240 was supplied, in all versions, I am aware of, with a
>multi-tapped power transformer, making it suitable for all regions. If fact,
>most of the models, we received, were US specc'd models, which were then
>modified (by yours truly) for local conditions. Australia was (and still is)
>a tiny market, which did not justify a special model run.
>
>In any case, you were misled. Pitting of the mica washers, was an extremely
>rare event (in ANY amplifier). Such a problem most often leads to
>catastophic failure modes, not noise (particularly, given that the Marantz
>240 output devices are connected to rail Volts). Mica washers usually fail,
>due to poor finishing of the holes in the heatsinking. I have never seen
>this in any Marantz. The real fault, with the 240/250/250M amps, was due to
>the failure of one of the front end differential amplifier transistors. The
>other serious problem, with early models, was due to the nature of the PCB
>material used in the output stages. The PCB material was hygroscopic. The
>absorbed moisture caused all manner of *interesting* faults (including
>noise). PCB materials were changed in later production runs.
>
>>
>> Now, I don't know enough about electronics to tell you that what they
>> told me was true or not... I do know that I had two 240's that would
>> make an incredibly loud crackling/white noise at sustained high volume
>> levels until I turned the unit off. This was extremely disconcerting,
>> not to mention the fact that it could be quite messy, having to change
>> your pants at odd times during listening sessions. It would typically
>> scare the bejeebers out of people. Turning it back on would not
>> immediately reproduce the noise, which made troubleshooting very
>> difficult.
>
>**A classic case of thermally failing front end transistors. Early plastic
>pack devices, often exhibited such problems. This problem was certainly not
>restricted to Marantz.
>
>>
>> Now, that said, I just can't agree that it was a superior product.
>
>**That's fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion. In the cold hard
>light of the late part of the 20th Century, the 240 does appear to be an
>ordinary product. In it's time, it demonstrated some very superior
>characteristics. For the technically inclined, it was one of the first
>common Emitter amplifier output stages, which I had ever seen. Such a
>configuration requires more effort by the designer, but can pay dividends,
>sonically.
>
>>
>> Additionally, the sound was not that great, in my opinion.
>
>**Again, until I heard the Marantz 500, it was my bench mark amp. I found it
>to very, very good, indeed. Certainly, sonically, vastly superior to the
>Marantz 510/M. That particular amp, although reliable, was a dog. A classic
>study, in how NOT to design a good sounding amplifier. It was very reliable,
>though.
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
<sanf...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>those of you that have
>used one, know what I mean. :-)
Yes, I know!
Trevor Wilson
Gary Sanford
wrote:
>Hello all. What are your opinions of this amp?
>
FWIW. I think someone should shamelessly copy their horizontal
"Gyro-Tuning" dial and use it as a volume control or something.
Or just hook one up to an optical encoder and weight it down for the
"feel" and page whatever you want digitally. those of you that have
used one, know what I mean. :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary Sanford
sanf...@spectradyne.com (pgp public key available)
John Nunes
> Hello all. What are your opinions of this amp?
This product is a good example of what stupid things can happen when
engineering does a decent job and then marketing gets a hold of the
project and the end result is mediocre.
John Iverson was on the design team for the 240/250 before he went into
business for himself. (Electro Research and later Electron Kinetics) He
told me that the finished prototype was an 80wpc amp with 6 output
devices per channel. Marketing didn't feel that 80 wpc was enough and
insisted upon more. (up the supply voltage guys!) Also they thought
using 6 output devices was too expensive and managed in the end to
reduce this to 4. The result was that the amp became current limited at
about a 7 ohm resistive load, meaning it couldn't drive reactive loads
very well. It was therefore also intolerant to sustained high frequency
drive. (not enough SOA to offset common mode conduction) Granted, the
later is not a condition likely to occur during reproduction of music,
but the amplifier was a less reliable product than it should have been.
Inadequate heat sinking topped off the cake. Not good.
Iverson quit Marantz b/c of stuff like this.
- John Nunes
Trevor Wilson
<ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:4jsdksgnuvuc6qgfc...@4ax.com...
**Be aware that the bass control problems, of the 510, were only manifest,
at clipping. Keep it below that point and you don't have a problem.
>
> One unfortunate aspect of the 510/M is that it was also marketed as a
> sound reinforcement amp. It had the 2-speed fan for that purpose. I
> ran a pro-sound shop at the time and your assessment is correct...
> pushed to its limits, the 510 can get pretty nasty. Whether or not it
> melts voice coils I'll trust in your experience, but it definitely was
> better behaved at lower output levels below clipping.
**Melted voice coils were not a problem, per se. What was a problem, was the
tendency for voice coils to continue moving in the direction dictated, by
the amplifier's output Voltage, just prior to clipping. Too much positive
and the voice coil would exit the magnetic gap. Too much negative and the
voice coil would smash into the pole piece. The cone would attempt to
continue moving, thus detaching itself from the voice coil assy.
>
> I'd heard that the 500 was a great sound amp, I saw one once, but
> never heard it. I guess you have also revealed something about your
> preferences in that your 500 is in pieces and the 240 was outstanding.
> I'd bet you own a Ferrari?
**I actually prefer my autos, to be somewhat more reliable. A 911 Porsche,
would be choice. More pragmatically, a Subaru WRX, would be entirely
adequate. The 500 was sold to me, under the express promise that I never
allow it to be returned to the Marantz distributors, for any reason. I
understand that the Marantz 500 project cost Marantz (aka: Superscope Inc.)
a total of US$3 million, from design, to the end of the warranty period. All
that, for a total of 300 amplifiers. I'll just bet the Tushinsky brothers
were pissed.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
<ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:2dvdksgv30r17oi7j...@4ax.com...
> So, there! You really do know what you're talking about! <grin> I sure
> wish I knew you circa 1973 or whenever it was I had that amp... you
> probably could have fixed it... you have no idea how hard it seemed to
> be for Marantz to get these amps corrected. I can't even remember the
> number of weeks they were out of service... they tried and tried. Who
> would have thought to call Australia?
>
**Ah, what can I say? At 1/20th the size (economically) of the US, Australia
barely registers. Why would anyone think of us.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Arny Krueger
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:RlJ15.4466$cQ.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Beautiful country, not too many people, unusual sights, no doubt its
share of good, friendly people... ;-)
Trotsky
Arnii, I had no idea you'd been to Australia. You haven't, have you?
Trotsky
Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "Trotsky" <gsi...@mc.net> wrote in message
> news:39476978...@mc.net...
> Sure, but the context was "think of", not "be there".
>
> Mr. Singh, if it weren't so pathetic and irritating, it might be
> interesting how you, Middius, Bamborough, etc. remain incapable of
> comprehending the concept of "context".
Mr. Krooglebeast, is this post further example of the hypocrisy that
defines your "religion"?
Arny Krueger
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
You have got to be kidding?
Kenneth Kirkpatrick
Johnson or Pass amps you would be back to sonic heaven. Funny how little things
have changed. You stumbled on to some kick ass sound when you fed a great tube
rtr direct to a nice amp. Cheers, Ken
Steve Zipser wrote:
> In article <O_C15.631$Kr1....@news.uswest.net>, Geo...@zxmail.com
> says...
> > Which brings us to the model 15. Is it a good amp, and how does it compare
> > to the model 16?
>
> sold that crappy Marantz 23 (the 22 was just as shitty sounding for
> whoever sang its praises earlier today).
> At this point, I kept the Model 16 as a spare and bought a Marantz 2325
> receiver - which was a high powered (125wpc) receiver with a built in
> dolby circuit - for both taping and for FM playback. It was a good piece
> but never made me happy.
> After much searching, in 1977, I purchased a CM Labs CC-3 preamplifier
> - the first high end, modern MOSFET, really good sounding preamplifier on
> the market - I coupled this to a CM-912 Power amplifier - the first high
> quality, great sounding, MOSFET, high-powered power amplifier on the
> market - and I was in sonic heaven. The Marantz 16 was finally out of my
> life after an 8 year run.
> Cheers
> Zip
>
Steve Zipser
detail?
Zip
In article <070d82e0...@usw-ex0103-086.remarq.com>,
tony_...@email.com says...
> 'mr honesty' asks:
>
> >Which brings us to the model 15. Is it a good amp, and how does
> >it compare
> >to the model 16?
>
> steve zipser:
>
> > The 16 was a successor to the 15 - it was a dual mono design
> (the 15
> >was not) and the 16 was a wee bit more powerful - it was
> clearly a sonic
> >improvement though.
>
> steve, as i recall, the 15 *was* a dual mono design(the model 14
> was one side of a model 15)and i think the 16/16b was built on
> the same chassisas the 15.
>
> i remember marantz 15s as problematic, especially with anything
> resembling a low-impedence load. i think the current limiting
> scheme involved a ligt-bulb-maybe Trevor can help out here.
>
> zipser, continued:
>
> ----snip----
> i think the tuner-preamp was a model 24-the 23 was a tuner.
>
> re: the model 22 receiver-what do you think was a better
> receiver in it's day, aside from a marantz 19 and, maybe a mac
> 1700? anything from scoot, fisher, kenwood, sony, sansui or
> others?
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
>
--
Tony Loban
Tony Loban
Steve Zipser
>
> >Which brings us to the model 15. Is it a good amp, and how does
> >it compare
> >to the model 16?
> steve zipser:
> i think the tuner-preamp was a model 24-the 23 was a tuner.
>
> re: the model 22 receiver-what do you think was a better
> receiver in it's day, aside from a marantz 19 and, maybe a mac
> 1700? anything from scoot, fisher, kenwood, sony, sansui or
> others?
Fisher 500T was very good. There was a Heathkit that was excellent -
maybe called the AR-1500??? None of the Japanese receivers were in that
class - but I was never a big 22 fan - underpowered and anemic power
supply for the amplifier. There were also some tube receivers that
really sounded good - from Scott, Fisher, KLH, etc.
Zip
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
wrote:
>Inadequate heat sinking topped off the cake. Not good.
Yes, I remember that now... the amp got REALLY HOT. You could almost
fry an egg on the heat sinks. I thought that was odd at the time.
Kenneth Kirkpatrick
has gotten away from tuners. I could dial up a station just a quick with
that goodie as any modern digital "push the buttons" tuners.( but a
remote control rules) Half the time I can't even find the buttons to
push on modern receivers. Ken
Gary Sanford wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:11:04 -0700, "MrHONESTY" <Geo...@zxmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hello all. What are your opinions of this amp?
> >
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Trevor Wilson <www.rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>**Ah, what can I say? At 1/20th the size (economically) of the US, Australia
>barely registers. Why would anyone think of us.
Well, Trevor, if you arranged for that continent of your to have some
rainfall in the interior, you could do more with it :-)
Btw, do you get email? You seem not to reply??
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2000, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
<neilkoome...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>My understanding was that the 250 was the same as the 240,
The 250 had some engineering changes that eliminated some of the major
reliability problems.
Tony Loban
>
>My understanding was that the 250 was the same as the 240,
eric replies:
>The 250 had some engineering changes that eliminated some of
>the major
>reliability problems.
eric, i think you are confusing a 250 with a 250m. the 250 came
out in very late 1971. it replaced the model 16 and was the
first marantz power amp with output level meters. the 240 *was*
a 250, sans meters. it was introduced in late '72 or early '73,
first with a gold faceplate, then with a black faceplate. the
240 and 250 co-existed in the marantz line for a year or two.
the 250m was a later, somewhat different amp.
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
beast. The 240/250 combo had the different faceplates.
Eric
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:09:30 -0700, Tony Loban <tony_...@email.com>
wrote:
Trotsky
Tony Loban wrote:
>
> NeilKoomen wrote:
> >
> >My understanding was that the 250 was the same as the 240,
>
> eric replies:
>
> >The 250 had some engineering changes that eliminated some of
> >the major
> >reliability problems.
>
> eric, i think you are confusing a 250 with a 250m. the 250 came
> out in very late 1971. it replaced the model 16 and was the
> first marantz power amp with output level meters. the 240 *was*
> a 250, sans meters. it was introduced in late '72 or early '73,
> first with a gold faceplate, then with a black faceplate. the
> 240 and 250 co-existed in the marantz line for a year or two.
> the 250m was a later, somewhat different amp.
>
Dickie, your knowledge of Marantz audio history seems to be pretty good.
How long did you say you have been in the audio biz again?
Trevor Wilson
"jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
message news:Fw5I6...@research.att.com...
> In article <RlJ15.4466$cQ.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Trevor Wilson <www.rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >**Ah, what can I say? At 1/20th the size (economically) of the US,
Australia
> >barely registers. Why would anyone think of us.
>
> Well, Trevor, if you arranged for that continent of your to have some
> rainfall in the interior, you could do more with it :-)
**Many feel that is part of the charm of my country. Up North, in the
Queensland and the Northern Territory, they only have two seasons: The Wet
and the Dry. The Wet is, well, very, very wet.
>
> Btw, do you get email? You seem not to reply??
**Huh? Sure I do.
Hang on a minute, I'll go look in the appropriate folder.......
Rummage, rammage, rammage.
Sorry, jj, I can't see anything from you, in the recent past. My present
email address is (and will be, for all time, I hope) tre...@rageaudio.com.au
I apologise if I missed a post.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
<ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:fb5fkssvavj36uvga...@4ax.com...
**That is the figure I heard, when I was working for Marantz. It may be
incorrect, but knowing how unreliable the 500 (between 5 and 10 repairs
required, within the 3 year warranty period) was and how mindnumbingly
difficult they are to repair (average repair time - 10-15 hours), the figure
could be close to the mark. The problem with the 500, was associated with
the very advanced circuitry used. An attempt was made to use full
complementary output devices, in an amplfifier of very high power (for it's
time), before the technology could deliver those devices with a reasonable
order of reliability and margin for over-Voltage. Up until the Marantz 500,
high power amps, used quasi complementary symetry output devices.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
"Tony Loban" <tony_...@email.com> wrote in message
news:0a21b384...@usw-ex0103-086.remarq.com...
> 'mr honesty' asks:
>
> >Which brings us to the model 15. Is it a good amp, and how does
> >it compare
> >to the model 16?
>
> steve zipser:
>
> (the 15
> >was not) and the 16 was a wee bit more powerful - it was
> clearly a sonic
> >improvement though.
>
> steve, as i recall, the 15 *was* a dual mono design(the model 14
> was one side of a model 15)and i think the 16/16b was built on
> the same chassisas the 15.
>
> i remember marantz 15s as problematic, especially with anything
> resembling a low-impedence load. i think the current limiting
> scheme involved a ligt-bulb-maybe Trevor can help out here.
**Thanks for the vote of confidence, Tony, but my knowledge of early Marantz
products, prior to the three digit series, is sadly lacking. Very few were
imported into Australia. I did manage to secure a Model 18, though. It blew
up last month, so I'll have to fix it. It has provided sterling service, on
my workbench, for more than 20 years. Sonically, it is very good. Amazing,
in fact, for a 60 watt receiver.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
MrHONESTY
true Marantz!
Trevor Wilson wrote in message ...
Tony Loban
>This must be the reason for the 2 digit series "legendary"
reputation. a
>true Marantz!
question is, what constitutes a 'true marantz'? saul marantz
sold the company to superscope in 1964, meaning that two of the
most highly regarded products, the model 9 mono tube amp and the
model 10/10b tuner, were made *after* the company was sold.
*all* solid state products were made after marantz ceased to be
an 'independent' company(and those products continued to improve
over the years-e.g., a 3300 was an improvement over a 33 and a
250/240,ime, was an improvement over a 16/16b). imo, marantz
changed over the years from a high-end company to a company that
continued to make high-end seperates mostly as a means of
lending 'credibility' to their receiver/smaller integrated amp
line, yet overall quality remained fairly high.. the dramatic
drop-off in quality didn't occur, imo, until superscope sold the
company to philips in 1980.
Trevor Wilson
> "MrHONESTY" wrote:
>
> >This must be the reason for the 2 digit series "legendary"
> reputation. a
> >true Marantz!
>
>
> question is, what constitutes a 'true marantz'? saul marantz
> sold the company to superscope in 1964, meaning that two of the
> most highly regarded products, the model 9 mono tube amp and the
> model 10/10b tuner, were made *after* the company was sold.
> *all* solid state products were made after marantz ceased to be
> an 'independent' company(and those products continued to improve
> over the years-e.g., a 3300 was an improvement over a 33 and a
> 250/240,ime, was an improvement over a 16/16b). imo, marantz
> changed over the years from a high-end company to a company that
> continued to make high-end seperates mostly as a means of
> lending 'credibility' to their receiver/smaller integrated amp
> line, yet overall quality remained fairly high.. the dramatic
> drop-off in quality didn't occur, imo, until superscope sold the
> company to philips in 1980.
>
**Actually, the quality of Marantz took a BIG hit, sometime around 1978, or
so. I recall, quite vividly, the boss explaining the term 'value
engineering' to me. It sounded real exciting to me. Soon after, I started
seeing the SR series of receivers. Urk. Output IC's (instead of descrete
output stages), pressed board bases (instead of coated steel), horrible
layouts, large printed circuit boards, etc, etc. It was a sad time for
Marantz. When Phiips took over, the slide continued for awhile, then
reversed.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Kenneth Kirkpatrick
disaster. Do you know any more good stories like this? Cheers, Ken
Tony Loban
----snip----
>the dramatic
> drop-off in quality didn't occur, imo, until superscope sold
>the
>company to philips in 1980.
Trevor Wilson adds:
>**Actually, the quality of Marantz took a BIG hit, sometime
>around 1978, or
>so. I recall, quite vividly, the boss explaining the term 'value
>engineering' to me. It sounded real exciting to me. Soon after,
>I started
>seeing the SR series of receivers. Urk. Output IC's (instead of
>descrete
>output stages), pressed board bases (instead of coated steel),
>horrible
>layouts, large printed circuit boards, etc, etc. It was a sad
>time for
>Marantz. When Phiips took over, the slide continued for awhile,
>then
>reversed.
Trevor, in the mists of time, i have to come to associate
the 'sr' series as happening *after* the sale to philips. thanks
for correcting my recollection.
one situation that you missed in australia was that in the usa
someone else bought exclusive rights to the name for a time.
they brought the worst kind of 'rack-system' swill to market
under the marantz name-a sad time for we marantz fans.
Trevor Wilson
"Kenneth Kirkpatrick" <ken...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:39494945...@gte.net...
> You would have thought Marantz would have just bought the amps back. What
a
> disaster. Do you know any more good stories like this? Cheers, Ken
>
**Ok, here's one more.
The Marantz 4230 (low powered, 4 channel, receiver) exhibited a failure rate
(within the 3 year warranty period), of 47%. As a contrast the amp which
launched Marantz into success, in the mid fi area, the 1060, exhibited an
in-warranty failure rate of 1.5%. The 1070 (my favourite cheapy) a failure
rate of 0.4%.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
have one that's a mess. It never really worked well, then the unit
failed, I sent it to Marantz and it came back quasi-working order
(very poor reception). Finally, the gyro tuner locked up... any
thoughts?
Eric
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:27:17 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Tony Loban" <tony_...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:005adcc8...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com...
>> "MrHONESTY" wrote:
>>
>> >This must be the reason for the 2 digit series "legendary"
>> reputation. a
>> >true Marantz!
>>
>>
>> question is, what constitutes a 'true marantz'? saul marantz
>> sold the company to superscope in 1964, meaning that two of the
>> most highly regarded products, the model 9 mono tube amp and the
>> model 10/10b tuner, were made *after* the company was sold.
>> *all* solid state products were made after marantz ceased to be
>> an 'independent' company(and those products continued to improve
>> over the years-e.g., a 3300 was an improvement over a 33 and a
>> 250/240,ime, was an improvement over a 16/16b). imo, marantz
>> changed over the years from a high-end company to a company that
>> continued to make high-end seperates mostly as a means of
>> lending 'credibility' to their receiver/smaller integrated amp
>> line, yet overall quality remained fairly high.. the dramatic
>> drop-off in quality didn't occur, imo, until superscope sold the
>> company to philips in 1980.
>>
>
Trevor Wilson
<ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:gp5jksknjvjdt9bnv...@4ax.com...
> Trevor - what would your thoughts be regarding a Model 150 tuner. I
> have one that's a mess. It never really worked well, then the unit
> failed, I sent it to Marantz and it came back quasi-working order
> (very poor reception). Finally, the gyro tuner locked up... any
> thoughts?
>
**I never much cared for the sound of the 150 (or the 125). I have a
preference for old Yammie tuners. Nevertheless, the 150 is capable of very
fine technical performance and that 'scope is very, very useful, for antenna
setup.
The 150 is not too difficult to align, fully and properly. Still, if it's
only poor reception, I'd be looking at the front end dual gate MOSFET
(3SK45), or it's associated tuned circuit. That part, is a relatively simple
alignment problem, easily taken on by a competent tech. If the fault is in
the IF stage, then it will be considerably more difficult to service. As for
the Gyro TouchT tuning, well, I've never seen one fail. Ever. I have no
advice, in this area. If the cast items have expanded, then you're in big
trouble. If it's just the bearings, then I guess a competent mechanical guy
could assist.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>**I never much cared for the sound of the 150 (or the 125). I have a
>preference for old Yammie tuners. Nevertheless, the 150 is capable of very
>fine technical performance and that 'scope is very, very useful, for antenna
>setup.
I agree with your assessment on sound and comparison to the old
Yammies -- they were extremely well designed pieces for the money.
May be time to get rid of the 150.
Eric
Kenneth Kirkpatrick
Since I am a tube guy! Just kidding, I love that old Marantz gear, both tube
and solid state. Have you noticed the going price for a 10B tuner lately? I saw
a mint one go for over 5000.00 last month on ebay. Wow. Cheers, Ken
hified...@gmail.com
> Hello all. What are your opinions of this amp?
Rob
www.audiohifiedintorni.it
