Not to digress but did Marantz tube gear fit anywhere in this picture?
Fisher vs Mcintosh
- Thread starter AlTinkster92
- Start date
Not to digress but did Marantz tube gear fit anywhere in this picture?
Brian
An Old Geezer
Right up there with McIntosh. Back then I was 100% a Marantz tube person and would not give Mc shelf space as long as I had a Marantz unit that was for most of the time. Sledom was without a 10b, 7c and a pair of 9s. I did for a short time have a set of Consullettes with stereo adapor and a pair of 5s and in some ways liked then better than the 7c and 9s. I thnk the 5s may have been Saul's finest amps. SOme find the 8/8b better than the 9s but I ran my 9s in triode mode as they were switchable and compared to the 8b were better but at a high cost as in triode they were 35 watts, the same as the 8b. The 8b is the most common and no slouch. For those liking triodes, the 8b is rewirable to triode and came in the 8b instructions, Good for half power. A customer has one in triode on a set of K'horns and the marriage was wonderful. He had an unmodded 8b and the difference was noticable even to the untrained ear.
When Marantz moved into the SS world while Saul was still there, I was not as impressed but the 18, 19 and SLT-12u as well as the 20 and 7t were enough to keep me there but, the 15 and 16 were disappointing at best especially after Mc introduced the MC250. While the 7t was IMHO better then the 24 and maybe as good as the 26 the 28 was clearly to me better and why I finally went over from Marantz to MC and bought the 28 and 250 for my personal main system not associated with my business. The last 10b left the house and I had to decide on whether the 20b or a MC and after listening to the 20, 20b, MR74, MR77 and MR78 I finally decided on the MR77. The MR74 was the best sounding but was getting long oin the tooth, the newer 78 was the worst sounding but best on DX'ing that I did not need. The 20 was neck in neck with the 20 and the 77 with the 20b. It seemed on a cost per sound with the salesperon discount sided with the Mc so the MR77 was decided on.
When the replacements for the 7t, 20, 15 and 16 came out things get confusing. The 16b was a serious contender and the bugs of the 15 and 16 worked out. But the new lineup of tuners and preamps were defintiely a major comedown in sound and quality. It seemed until the 500 amp came out that Marantz was willing to not try to really compete as a tier 1 player preferring to sell to the tier 2 market with a line of lesser units. Admittedly, from time to time they did come out with something that clearly was a competition killer such as the 24 tuner/preamp, the 2230 receiver and 1060 amp. While the o'scope tuners after the 20/20b were nothing but hype, the lesser non-scope higher end tuners were decent but not great. I liked the 112 but many tuners were better. From memory the 2230 was made up of the 1060 amp and 112 tuner so was a bargain with a great amp and quite a decent tuner. One of the better market buys, even today.
Marantz never had a tube receiver so not any apples in that basket. Hope it is responsive to your question. Just a personal opinion.
When Marantz moved into the SS world while Saul was still there, I was not as impressed but the 18, 19 and SLT-12u as well as the 20 and 7t were enough to keep me there but, the 15 and 16 were disappointing at best especially after Mc introduced the MC250. While the 7t was IMHO better then the 24 and maybe as good as the 26 the 28 was clearly to me better and why I finally went over from Marantz to MC and bought the 28 and 250 for my personal main system not associated with my business. The last 10b left the house and I had to decide on whether the 20b or a MC and after listening to the 20, 20b, MR74, MR77 and MR78 I finally decided on the MR77. The MR74 was the best sounding but was getting long oin the tooth, the newer 78 was the worst sounding but best on DX'ing that I did not need. The 20 was neck in neck with the 20 and the 77 with the 20b. It seemed on a cost per sound with the salesperon discount sided with the Mc so the MR77 was decided on.
When the replacements for the 7t, 20, 15 and 16 came out things get confusing. The 16b was a serious contender and the bugs of the 15 and 16 worked out. But the new lineup of tuners and preamps were defintiely a major comedown in sound and quality. It seemed until the 500 amp came out that Marantz was willing to not try to really compete as a tier 1 player preferring to sell to the tier 2 market with a line of lesser units. Admittedly, from time to time they did come out with something that clearly was a competition killer such as the 24 tuner/preamp, the 2230 receiver and 1060 amp. While the o'scope tuners after the 20/20b were nothing but hype, the lesser non-scope higher end tuners were decent but not great. I liked the 112 but many tuners were better. From memory the 2230 was made up of the 1060 amp and 112 tuner so was a bargain with a great amp and quite a decent tuner. One of the better market buys, even today.
Marantz never had a tube receiver so not any apples in that basket. Hope it is responsive to your question. Just a personal opinion.
Brian
An Old Geezer
The tube Marantz was tier 1 with McIntosh while Scott, Fisher and Sherwood were in tier 2 per the raters back then. Persons considering a Fisher sledom were swayed to Marantz on a cost basis as well as different market targets; Fisher generally sold to the well healed old money similar in profile to Avery and crossed over to professionals. Marantz was more audiophile oriented as was Mc though they also invaded the Fisher professional market of lawyers, doctors etc. and up and comers who liked to show off whereas Fisher buyers were more old money who did not like to show off as much. Again generalities but you had to look at their marketing targets of the time and their success in their marketing. Sherwood and Scott were more targeting their regions rather than marketing to wealth or population profiles so garnered a smaller market share but tended to have more saturation in thier home regions.
Hiya,
Well Mcintosh company is still largely what it was when it started out. I can't say the same for Marantz , Fisher , Sherwood , Harmon Kardon etc ..
Also I am mainly carping about price because I think that some people (Present company excluded) get the wrong idea about audio worth by what something sells for.
Meaning Fisher stuff in particular suffers from what I call mass pricing hysteria.
Not like Beanie Babies mind you but still flavor of the month so to speak.
And maybe I want sane prices so I can enjoy the better Fisher stuff at a price it should be rather than what it is because of hysteria.
Selfish yes but I know more than a few people who wish the hysteria would subside.
And another thing. I was snarky about the Tube Marantz stuff. Call that jealousy. Its out of my price range so I in a immature moment took a cheap shot at it.
I am old enough to know its the good stuff and still is. And I would be doing cartwheels if I owned some of it.
Frannie
Well Mcintosh company is still largely what it was when it started out. I can't say the same for Marantz , Fisher , Sherwood , Harmon Kardon etc ..
Also I am mainly carping about price because I think that some people (Present company excluded) get the wrong idea about audio worth by what something sells for.
Meaning Fisher stuff in particular suffers from what I call mass pricing hysteria.
Not like Beanie Babies mind you but still flavor of the month so to speak.
And maybe I want sane prices so I can enjoy the better Fisher stuff at a price it should be rather than what it is because of hysteria.
Selfish yes but I know more than a few people who wish the hysteria would subside.
And another thing. I was snarky about the Tube Marantz stuff. Call that jealousy. Its out of my price range so I in a immature moment took a cheap shot at it.
I am old enough to know its the good stuff and still is. And I would be doing cartwheels if I owned some of it.
Frannie
Very fascinating to hear the stories from the early days of hi-fi from a veteran of the industry like yourself. I came along quite a bit later as I'm sure you can tell and am steadily developing an appreciation and respect for what some consider the early golden era of hi-fi. My grandfather was an ardent music lover and audiophile which began my trajectory into the field as an early teen. I wish I knew more around 10 years ago when my grandparents house had to be sold along with the contents which included a pair of EV Patricians in mint condition. It makes me sick to think about that now but there was simply nowhere for me or anyone in the family to have kept those mammoth speakers at that time. Sorry to go off tangent here.
Anyway your statements about Marantz make perfect sense: In O'Brien's book, The McIntosh Clinics 1962-1991, the only other amplifier that consistently made manufacturer's specification (other than McIntosh) was...Marantz.
Anyway your statements about Marantz make perfect sense: In O'Brien's book, The McIntosh Clinics 1962-1991, the only other amplifier that consistently made manufacturer's specification (other than McIntosh) was...Marantz.
Last edited:
Brian
An Old Geezer
Okay, I now understand a bit more of your issue. I agree that there are few companies today that go back to the relative beginning such as McIntosh that still retain thier original quality, if any.
Collector hysteria today is crazy and in most cases as to a number of brands and periods makes no sense to me but, I am not a collector for the most part. I have found a number of companies under the collector companiest and models that are far better but either held little market share or marketing clout back then and hence not something collectors had wanted back then, Some companies that were widely sold in the upper levels and into the mid-fi market have lost their collectibility because of their later offeerings and declines. There are those who are in the middle.
I do not understand as persons I think over pay: 22xx and later Marantz, except the 2230, their preamps after the 7t, their tuners after the 20/20b and integrated amps save the 1060 and power amps after the 16/16b.
Brands I've found being underpriced for the quality: Philips Lab Series receiver and components, Sherwood SS tuners, amps and receivers US made through the SEL series and including the later HP units, Early Fisher SS and the short lived hybrid and, Sony early entry SS units such as their totl receivers throught the STR6065 and separates of the time including the scarce tuner/preamp, H-K dual mono receivers the x30 sereis and the 401 and 402 amps.
Some brands not on the radar where some lines at least should be given consideration: KLH 5x series not for necessary high end quality but for sound in local hipopulation areas where 5-gang tuners not needed. The 27 should also be included though it is a collectible for those who know of it. EICO tube units and even their later Cortina SS line. The Cortina lineup for the same reason as the KLH. Mattes SS, just an unknown company and units are very rare. Quality easily as good as McIntosh and 1st gen SAE. Talking of SAE, the 1st gen amps and preamp. The matching tuners seem to get all the attention. There are a lot more some would proffer based on experiences such as Superscope, Technics, etc. Not necessarily high-end but amongst units that rise to the top and near top of the mid-fi pond. A number of Superscope units were rebadged Sony as to their tape units and Marantz as to their tuners, receivers and amps. If I were into this market, I'd probably look at the Superscopes for enjoyment but probably as not appreciation on the market at least in the short terms. Some of the 2nd named lines such as Technics/Panasonic and McIntosh/Stereotech fall into this grouping.
Collector hysteria today is crazy and in most cases as to a number of brands and periods makes no sense to me but, I am not a collector for the most part. I have found a number of companies under the collector companiest and models that are far better but either held little market share or marketing clout back then and hence not something collectors had wanted back then, Some companies that were widely sold in the upper levels and into the mid-fi market have lost their collectibility because of their later offeerings and declines. There are those who are in the middle.
I do not understand as persons I think over pay: 22xx and later Marantz, except the 2230, their preamps after the 7t, their tuners after the 20/20b and integrated amps save the 1060 and power amps after the 16/16b.
Brands I've found being underpriced for the quality: Philips Lab Series receiver and components, Sherwood SS tuners, amps and receivers US made through the SEL series and including the later HP units, Early Fisher SS and the short lived hybrid and, Sony early entry SS units such as their totl receivers throught the STR6065 and separates of the time including the scarce tuner/preamp, H-K dual mono receivers the x30 sereis and the 401 and 402 amps.
Some brands not on the radar where some lines at least should be given consideration: KLH 5x series not for necessary high end quality but for sound in local hipopulation areas where 5-gang tuners not needed. The 27 should also be included though it is a collectible for those who know of it. EICO tube units and even their later Cortina SS line. The Cortina lineup for the same reason as the KLH. Mattes SS, just an unknown company and units are very rare. Quality easily as good as McIntosh and 1st gen SAE. Talking of SAE, the 1st gen amps and preamp. The matching tuners seem to get all the attention. There are a lot more some would proffer based on experiences such as Superscope, Technics, etc. Not necessarily high-end but amongst units that rise to the top and near top of the mid-fi pond. A number of Superscope units were rebadged Sony as to their tape units and Marantz as to their tuners, receivers and amps. If I were into this market, I'd probably look at the Superscopes for enjoyment but probably as not appreciation on the market at least in the short terms. Some of the 2nd named lines such as Technics/Panasonic and McIntosh/Stereotech fall into this grouping.
Brian
An Old Geezer
The thing to look for is a synergetic system that is not fatiquing, one you can listen to for hours at a time without losing interest or thinking about other things, i.e. it can draw you in. It may be more colored than one may think. Balance is the key.
Many start with a small system and work our way up but at a certain level most will find it cost more and more for minimal improvements and at some time the money is spent on other things such as source material. I've seen persons spending thousands of dollars for a minimal db increas in spl where the system will not benefit. WHile the same guy will not spend a penny of something like DGG mint condition LPs, many in wrapper (yes, not a hypothetical).
I went to an exptreme; started out with a mono Motorola telvision, changer, radio console mono system. 1st stereo was a pair of E-V Aristocrats with Quad II amps a 22 preamp and the mono FM Quad tuner with mpx adaptor. Can not remember the tt but, think it was a Weathers with Grace arm. From there fell into the let's go for better trap until I had access to almost anything on the market since I owned 4 stereo stores and took advantage of it greedily.
For much of this time I had as a personal permanent home main system the 10b, 7c, a brace of 9s and multiple KLH Nines with the Marantz SLT12U and Revox A77. I sold off all but 2 sts of the KLH Nines, a pair of Cornwalls and a set of JansZen Z824HPs that had crept into my personal system over the years when I decided to look for something totally reliable (thinking SS) as I was exiting the industry and looking to downsize and sought a replacement system switching ultimately to the Mc system that I only recently sold. By that time I had realized as much as I loved the Marantz/KLH/Revox system the original system that got me started came so close I could have started with. I then decided on a long term do not change system and hence the swithc to Mc based on their reknown for long term trouble free reliability and decided to to spend of source material.
More recently as use decreases and age increases, I am again having to rethink the system and there was a competition to see how minimal and small physically could I go and still enjoy to closely as I did the big system; an interesting journey. To date, it now is made up of my system list below but it is a work in progress. I also enjoy a KLH 27 and pair of ADS L-300s but there is a larger spead between them and the listed system largely b/c of the speakers. If I dump the small(er) Wharfedale W70s on the Sherwood, thought the result is a completely different sound, it does get a little closer to the KLH/ADS. I also am wrestling with the Philips receivers vs the Sony STR 6102, 6055 and little 6945 and the Sony amp and tuner vs. the Yamaha set and even more vintage Fisher 1st gen SS pair. Speakers are more limited b/c of size. Original Advents will go in favor of The Smaller Advents that to me sound better, ADS, Klipsch Heresys II for low level listening with low power needs while the Wharfedales and Bozaks that I'd love to keep will just take too much room if we move to a small condo or apt after David finally moves and we decide to go into retirement. Issue is how far can I go in downsizing without losing the enjoyment of listening vs. having something others drool over. The big issue is whether to finally move from reocrds as they take up room with a table and move to digital (yuck). I have never liked computer generated music and mp3 so they are not an option unless I move into a closet. Downsizing without loss of enjoyment is interesting maybe more of a challenge than going into the other direction.
Many start with a small system and work our way up but at a certain level most will find it cost more and more for minimal improvements and at some time the money is spent on other things such as source material. I've seen persons spending thousands of dollars for a minimal db increas in spl where the system will not benefit. WHile the same guy will not spend a penny of something like DGG mint condition LPs, many in wrapper (yes, not a hypothetical).
I went to an exptreme; started out with a mono Motorola telvision, changer, radio console mono system. 1st stereo was a pair of E-V Aristocrats with Quad II amps a 22 preamp and the mono FM Quad tuner with mpx adaptor. Can not remember the tt but, think it was a Weathers with Grace arm. From there fell into the let's go for better trap until I had access to almost anything on the market since I owned 4 stereo stores and took advantage of it greedily.
For much of this time I had as a personal permanent home main system the 10b, 7c, a brace of 9s and multiple KLH Nines with the Marantz SLT12U and Revox A77. I sold off all but 2 sts of the KLH Nines, a pair of Cornwalls and a set of JansZen Z824HPs that had crept into my personal system over the years when I decided to look for something totally reliable (thinking SS) as I was exiting the industry and looking to downsize and sought a replacement system switching ultimately to the Mc system that I only recently sold. By that time I had realized as much as I loved the Marantz/KLH/Revox system the original system that got me started came so close I could have started with. I then decided on a long term do not change system and hence the swithc to Mc based on their reknown for long term trouble free reliability and decided to to spend of source material.
More recently as use decreases and age increases, I am again having to rethink the system and there was a competition to see how minimal and small physically could I go and still enjoy to closely as I did the big system; an interesting journey. To date, it now is made up of my system list below but it is a work in progress. I also enjoy a KLH 27 and pair of ADS L-300s but there is a larger spead between them and the listed system largely b/c of the speakers. If I dump the small(er) Wharfedale W70s on the Sherwood, thought the result is a completely different sound, it does get a little closer to the KLH/ADS. I also am wrestling with the Philips receivers vs the Sony STR 6102, 6055 and little 6945 and the Sony amp and tuner vs. the Yamaha set and even more vintage Fisher 1st gen SS pair. Speakers are more limited b/c of size. Original Advents will go in favor of The Smaller Advents that to me sound better, ADS, Klipsch Heresys II for low level listening with low power needs while the Wharfedales and Bozaks that I'd love to keep will just take too much room if we move to a small condo or apt after David finally moves and we decide to go into retirement. Issue is how far can I go in downsizing without losing the enjoyment of listening vs. having something others drool over. The big issue is whether to finally move from reocrds as they take up room with a table and move to digital (yuck). I have never liked computer generated music and mp3 so they are not an option unless I move into a closet. Downsizing without loss of enjoyment is interesting maybe more of a challenge than going into the other direction.
After years of immersion in the world of hi-fi (or pretty much anything else for that matter), I can well appreciate one taking a more balanced and relaxed approach to the field.
Of the numerous discussions I've read here, I find this one of the most illuminating. Someday I'd very much enjoy finding a book (if one exists) that details the evolution of the hi-fi industry, significant breakthroughs, the players (both winners and losers) and everything between. If someone knows of such a work, I'd be very interested to know of it.
Of the numerous discussions I've read here, I find this one of the most illuminating. Someday I'd very much enjoy finding a book (if one exists) that details the evolution of the hi-fi industry, significant breakthroughs, the players (both winners and losers) and everything between. If someone knows of such a work, I'd be very interested to know of it.
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
It's a book which needs to be written in a compelling manner. It's a great storyline in the hands of a good writer with the cast of characters in this business. Some history here. Marantz Company was a full equal competitor to McIntosh and equally revered by the carriage trade and professional studio use. That legend came to a crashing halt in 1964 when Saul Marantz was forced to sell the Marantz Company. The reason was monetary losses suffered due to the introduction and production of the legendary 10B FM tuner. He was not able to sustain any profit on the tuner due to selling it for too little money relative to the cost of manufacturing it. This tuner was really too far ahead of it's time to be sellable under $700-$800 and it sold for far less. So, Saul Marantz sold Marantz to SuperScope in 1964 and Marantz broadened their line and sold gear at many price points from budget receivers to high end SOTA separates and all points in between. Marantz has since had periods from excellent broad line components to junky low end gear with the name to the resurgence in the name to middle of the line gear to superb high end separates again.
audiodon
Addicted Member
Brian, I'm following what you say.
I find my journey similar though I'm still somewhat on the acquisition side.
The only thing I differ on is believing that speakers have come a long way in the last decade. The changes in materials, such as using kevlar for piston drivers, and computer aided enclosure design in bracing, have driven the availability of quality speakers. Not all are stratospherically priced, but I suspect they're one of the last respits of retail margins.
I find my journey similar though I'm still somewhat on the acquisition side.
The only thing I differ on is believing that speakers have come a long way in the last decade. The changes in materials, such as using kevlar for piston drivers, and computer aided enclosure design in bracing, have driven the availability of quality speakers. Not all are stratospherically priced, but I suspect they're one of the last respits of retail margins.
I find my journey thru audio happiness is my 800C, although I still want a FM1000 etc. I love the look of Mcintosh analog tuners (old school) but have never owned one. I have found a Fm1000 but the price is 2600.00.... I think I'd have to be nuts to buy it. Also I am 61 and would have no one to leave it to. I will stick to my 800 and make it the best I can..and it sounds great as I am typeing this. I consider myself lucky to have what I have, love this Forum..
sunrayjack12
Active Member
Maybe more people are being exposed to the great sound of the vintage Fisher tube gear and are just voting with their wallet.
fred soop
Super Member
I heard once that the Mac receivers were designed by one of the "kids" (maybe Franks son), not the regular engineering department.
We once were able to go through a pile of McIntosh Clinic results while they were setting up for the evening. The Dynaco 120 would meet McIntosh specs down to 30 Hz, then shot off the graph because it ran out of power supply. I had an idea for maybe inverting phase of one channel, then inverting it back to normal at the speaker connection. This way, low frequencies would be mostly out of phase and both channels would not be hitting the power supply simultaneously.
Heathkit AR-15 would meet McIntosh spec up to near 20 kHz, where distortion would rise to 1%. Of course, these tests were only Harmonic distortion.
As for the tube equipment, McIntosh had transformer patents and made their own transformers, giving them an edge. Looking at schematics for the early solid state equipment, the design was rather basic. The main points were the output autoformer (full power at any impedance and no possibility of DC on the speaker if the output shorted) and extreme build quality. They could also deliver full power continuously, as in a non musical industrial application. Fisher and many other units were designed for music reproduction where average power would be 10 dB below maximum to prevent clipping. Transformers and heat sinks would not heat up as they would under continuous full power.
I never trusted Marantz after a review of the 10B tuner. Either Audio or High Fidelity magazine did a test and it was quite mediocre. A few months later, they had "found an error" in the test setup, did a retest, and everything was wonderful. I'm guessing that the "error" involved cash, and the original test report was probably the correct one. More recently it has been mentioned that some of the 10B specs were inconsistent and would have been impossible, especially in that era.
An engineer at Collins Radio in the 1960s mentioned that he thought that Scott tuners were "hotter" than Fisher. Today, with the decline in program and technical quality, combined with being 40 miles out, rather than 10, and the FCC not really doing anything about crap stations on the same channel in the opposite direction, I would not bother paying any kind of premium for an "excellent" tuner. Just not worth it.
We once were able to go through a pile of McIntosh Clinic results while they were setting up for the evening. The Dynaco 120 would meet McIntosh specs down to 30 Hz, then shot off the graph because it ran out of power supply. I had an idea for maybe inverting phase of one channel, then inverting it back to normal at the speaker connection. This way, low frequencies would be mostly out of phase and both channels would not be hitting the power supply simultaneously.
Heathkit AR-15 would meet McIntosh spec up to near 20 kHz, where distortion would rise to 1%. Of course, these tests were only Harmonic distortion.
As for the tube equipment, McIntosh had transformer patents and made their own transformers, giving them an edge. Looking at schematics for the early solid state equipment, the design was rather basic. The main points were the output autoformer (full power at any impedance and no possibility of DC on the speaker if the output shorted) and extreme build quality. They could also deliver full power continuously, as in a non musical industrial application. Fisher and many other units were designed for music reproduction where average power would be 10 dB below maximum to prevent clipping. Transformers and heat sinks would not heat up as they would under continuous full power.
I never trusted Marantz after a review of the 10B tuner. Either Audio or High Fidelity magazine did a test and it was quite mediocre. A few months later, they had "found an error" in the test setup, did a retest, and everything was wonderful. I'm guessing that the "error" involved cash, and the original test report was probably the correct one. More recently it has been mentioned that some of the 10B specs were inconsistent and would have been impossible, especially in that era.
An engineer at Collins Radio in the 1960s mentioned that he thought that Scott tuners were "hotter" than Fisher. Today, with the decline in program and technical quality, combined with being 40 miles out, rather than 10, and the FCC not really doing anything about crap stations on the same channel in the opposite direction, I would not bother paying any kind of premium for an "excellent" tuner. Just not worth it.
HTHMAN
Super Member
Back in 1967, I bought a new Fisher 700T receiver at a stereo store in Columbus, Ohio. A few months later, they were having a Mac clinic and you were invited to have your equipment tested vs the Mac tube amps. When I got my graph back, the THD of the Fisher was below the Mac all the way to 24 kHz where the Fisher shot up like a ski slope and the Mac stayed flat across the tested range. Did that make the Mac sound better-maybe. Did it make me happy with my purchase-certainly.
fred soop
Super Member
Must be a typo. The McIntosh graphs only went 20 Hz to 20 kHz. They also were not a "wide band" company like Harman Kardon.
HTHMAN
Super Member
Was not a typo. They gave you the actual graph. I had that thing for years but can no longer find it. The frequency range went at least to 40 or 50 kHz if not further. The graph actually mirrored the posted specs of the Fisher.
Hummm. That's a new one for me also. Of the numerous Mac Clinic graphs I have, they all only went out to 20 kHz. Maybe they came up with a new graph grid in later years?
Dave
Dave
Similar threads
