Marantz 7 Modified Class A Valve Tube Pre-Amplifier (Music Angle/Angel)?

Marantz should sue them for trademark infringement. I've sen these and others on the auction site but would never drop a dime when the company rips off names and commits fraud. Just a personal choice.

On what grounds? I'm sure any patents on the 7 preamp expired long ago, and I don't think they'd win in a case where someone was making the factual statement that the design was based on an old Marantz circuit.
 
I said trademark infringement and NOT patent infringement - a HUGE difference. I'd not go into the issue as to circuit design as I've not seen and been able to compare them side by side. However the Chinese version is either a 3 or 4 tube based circuit while the 7 was a 6 tube design. It could be a mod of the 7 but seems pretty radical. However, as I stated, my objection is the trademark. Cloning is one thing while piracy is another.
 
It actually is a line only pre so you would need a phono transformer or pre to up the signal. Langevin and Hasimoto both make beautiful step up transformers for MC cartridges. They are pricey though. I picked up Juicy Music Tercel phono pre and it works great with both the Maple Tree Audio and the Music Angle. :yes:

Cheers

Lar

Wow! Those Juicy Music Tercels are nice! None expected until next year, though. I passed on the Angle... going to research and look around a bit more. Thanks, Lar

Bruce
 
My post above was just an opinion, not legal advice, just for clarification. That said...

I said trademark infringement and NOT patent infringement - a HUGE difference. I'd not go into the issue as to circuit design as I've not seen and been able to compare them side by side. However the Chinese version is either a 3 or 4 tube based circuit while the 7 was a 6 tube design. It could be a mod of the 7 but seems pretty radical. However, as I stated, my objection is the trademark. Cloning is one thing while piracy is another.

I'm still wondering on what grounds trademark infringement would come into play. They're not calling it a "Marantz 7," the name on the pream is something like "Music Angel." They're just saying that it's based on a Marantz circuit, and likely would be allowed under the same rules that allow the mention of any other company in your advertising. If they were using the specific Marantz logo, that might change the story.
 
Wow! Those Juicy Music Tercels are nice! None expected until next year, though. I passed on the Angle... going to research and look around a bit more. Thanks, Lar

Bruce

The JM Blue Berry is a line pre with built in phono pre as well and is thought of highly. :yes:

Cheers

Lar
 
"Has anyone here (if they will admit it) tried one of these? From what I see on the net, those who haven't heard them put them down and those who have heard them seem to think they're pretty good, especially for what they cost."


That was the subject of this thread. NOT some nonexistent legal issue, NOT that they must be poorly built, though not actually ever having seen one. NOT some thinly veiled Chinese bashing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we were here in AK basically to share our experiences with equipment, to help each other with audio problems, and to make recommendations when asked.

ThePlantGuy
 
That particular pre is next on my list... I have also recently purchased a tube amp from the same seller that does the fancy ribbon thing on their packaging. Got the quick ship option and got it in 3 or 4 days and could not be more satisfied. Sound is fantastic and unit seems as well built if not better than most gear I have owned regardless of where it was made. If the pre is anywhere near the sound and build quality of the amp I will be nothing short of completely tickled... Not to be unpatriotic, but good gear is good gear period.
 
Sam, trademark infringement is when a trademark, in this case both the name Marantz and the "Model 7", is used without permission of the owner of the trademark for any purpose. While there are exceptions from licensing such as in an article or non-commercial use, this is nether. It does not matter if it is on the faceplate, literature or in an advertisement. Think about what would happen if tomorrow some car company advertised a car as having a modded Chrysler Hemi engine and it had little in common with the Chrysler Hemi. Chrysler would I'm sure protect its name and the Hemi model designation. Maybe that brings it home or I'm sure you can think of an other analogy.

Plantguy, just to be clear, I am not Chinese bashing. My opinion goes to any product regardless of where produced that violates IP rights. Nor, did I suggest they were poorly built and can not, as I've never seen one. While early on, Chinese quality for audio gear was generally suspect, I've seen them improve to a point where they have shown they can compete with the best of them out there in terms of design and build. In terms of audio quality they, like any audio industry make from terrible to very good products. There generally still is some rough edges to Chinese manufacturing which relates to consistency of production quality but that is something every maker regardless of venue has to constantly address. This has been pointed out in news articles, product reviews and other literature so should not be a surprise. My last 2 of 3 audio purchases were in fact Chinese, an Eton/Grundig S350DL and about a year later another. I also, think they make some of the better fountain pen nibs currently in production.
 
Last edited:
Brian, your point is well taken and probably should be explored in it's own thread.

However, my point was that it had nothing to do with "Has anyone here (if they will admit it) tried one of these? From what I see on the net, those who haven't heard them put them down and those who have heard them seem to think they're pretty good, especially for what they cost."
 
Sam, trademark infringement is when a trademark, in this case both the name Marantz and the "Model 7", is used without permission of the owner of the trademark for any purpose. While there are exceptions from licensing such as in an article or non-commercial use, this is nether. It does not matter if it is on the faceplate, literature or in an advertisement. Think about what would happen if tomorrow some car company advertised a car as having a modded Chrysler Hemi engine and it had little in common with the Chrysler Hemi. Chrysler would I'm sure protect its name and the Hemi model designation. Maybe that brings it home or I'm sure you can think of an other analogy.

I'm a lawyer by trade, and I understand the idea of trademarks. There is no need to be condescending. My point is that no one would ever be able to sell anything in the situation you're describing. Aftermarket parts for that Hemi engine? How would you identify those parts if they didn't say "Chrysler Hemi" on the box - even without Chrysler's permission? How could one product ever compare itself to another? Quite frankly, I don't know how a court would rule on this case, but unless the product was such a piece of junk that Marantz felt the sales were casting a negative light on their own name by merely being mentioned in the same breath with it, I doubt they'd ever bother to even send a cease and desist letter, much less litigate the issue. Without doing some extensive research on the subject, I'm going on what I learned in my IP class, and my gut feeling is that a factual statement that a product is based on a circuit that is long out of patent protection would be allowed under fair use, as long as it was factual and it wasn't being used as a statement that the product is made or endorsed by Marantz. I've seen similar situations in advertisements before, where one company said their product is based on technology developed by another company, and mentions that company by name.

I haven't studied the "music angel" preamps enough to know if their claim of being based on the Model 7 is factual or not. As said before, it's not legal advice, and your mileage may vary.

Theplantguy is right - this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread and doesn't belong here. However, I felt that a response was warranted.
 
Last edited:
My brother has owned one for a few months now, the build quality is quite good, I like the way the switches and pots are at the rear connected by extension spindles.
The component quality is what you would expect from a unit of this price band. Dave has changed out some of the caps for Russian ones and rolled in some Mullard valves. with great effect!!
I think that for the money you wont find better from China, and for three times the money from the US or Europe!

By the way his "Music Angle" does not have the mis-spelling, indeed it has no spelling at all on the front wooden panel! They must have forgot to put it on! I can assure you all it does not have any effect on its performance!
 
Now you all know 2 lawyers can look at the same thing and see it differently. Sam, I never practiced IP law as a concentration but, had to deal with IP rights in the M&A part of my practice.
 
My brother has owned one for a few months now, the build quality is quite good, I like the way the switches and pots are at the rear connected by extension spindles.
The component quality is what you would expect from a unit of this price band. Dave has changed out some of the caps for Russian ones and rolled in some Mullard valves. with great effect!!
I think that for the money you wont find better from China, and for three times the money from the US or Europe!

By the way his "Music Angle" does not have the mis-spelling, indeed it has no spelling at all on the front wooden panel! They must have forgot to put it on! I can assure you all it does not have any effect on its performance!

I would recommend this cheap Chinese preamp much more than the Music Angel (If you can get over the cheap looking window display tube):

http://www.alibaba.com/product/in10...ngSheng_Improved_728A_Tube_Pre_amplifier.html

I have had one for close to a year. With some vintage 12au7 and 5670 tubes, it is much less grainy than the Music Angel. It also has defeatable tone controls. I liked this preamp enough I decided to try another cheapo preamp in the Music Angel for the garage or basement. I would have been better off buying another XiangSheng 728A for just a little more $.

REgards,
Matt
 
Last edited:
Actually I wasn't planing on getting a Music Angel. I bid $121 including shipping figuring it would be bid up from there. Well, much to my surprise, I got it. For that little money I can't get hurt and I'm an older fellow on SS, so I can't spend much on these things. It will certainly sound better than my Rotel RX 875 receiver which I'll now be able to sell for $50 or so.
 
Chinese sellers advertise this device as "Music Angel", not "Marantz". They only state that it is based on "Marantz 7" design, copyright for which have been expired because of age. So there are no trademark or copyright violation whatsoever.

BTW, "Music Angel" is just a part of actual Marantz 7, phono pre-amplifier and stepped attenuators for tone controls have been excluded. I cannot understand what it is really useful for (except may be some fun).
 
Speaking of tone controls on the music angel, how difficult would it be to 1- disable the tone controls completely or 2- install a defeat switch?
 
Back
Top Bottom