M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
Again, they couldn't manage 100 WPC/8Ohm. Yet another, sub-100 watt amplifier added to the heap of many. Same stuff that happened to many people in the '70s when they were talked into 35-80wpc being enough because their parents wouldn't let them listen to loud rock music anyway. This anemic trend is what caused my rebellion back then, as well. I see it again with all the push to tiny stand mount/BS (bookshelf) speakers, and slim, needle assed towers. Great for sound restricted living arrangements and overbearing spouses, but not much else. This might be okay for speakers above 90db sensitivity, but not much else. I didn't read on to all the distinct features that may/may not set this apart, but for my money, I'd rather the Yamaha S801 instead, or a multi-channel AVR, even if for only two channels of it.

*Yawn*

 
Last edited:
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
And they still won't offer a real 2.1, shame!
Who won't, Marantz? Did you look at the photo of the back? Sub out jacks are next to the Audio In jacks.

That's pretty expensive for 75W, though. Denon has a stereo receiver that's rated at 80W for a lot less and it has most, in not all, of the same features.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Again, they couldn't manage 100 WPC/8Ohm. Yet another, sub-100 watt amplifier added to the heap of many. Same stuff that happened to many people in the '70s when they were talked into 35-80wpc being enough because their parents wouldn't let them listen to loud rock music anyway. This anemic trend is what caused my rebellion back then, as well. I see it again with all the push to tiny stand mount/BS (bookshelf) speakers, and slim, needle assed towers. Great for sound restricted living arrangements and overbearing spouses, but not much else. This might be okay for speakers above 90db sensitivity, but not much else. I didn't read on to all the distinct features that may/may not set this apart, but for my money, I'd rather the Yamaha S801 instead, or a multi-channel AVR, even if for only two channels of it.

*Yawn*
Most people don't use the power their amplifiers can deliver. It's the ones who crank the snot out of their system who need more power.
 
Tankini

Tankini

Senior Audioholic
I was lucky enough to grow up as a teenager in the 70s. Had plenty of those 35,45-watt rms rated 2 channel Stereo receivers, that's what they were called with the A and B speaker selector, two buttons A/B and I used both pushed in running 4 speakers all the time. Blew a lot of tweeters, All on me I would get to about 11-12 O'clock on the volume dial and say to myself, this sounds nice let's go up to 2 O'clock, tweeters started crackling.
 
-Jim-

-Jim-

Audioholic Field Marshall
I was a Marantz receiver fan back in the day. Initially I had a 2245 with 45 watts per channel into 8 Ohms. But I graduated to their fleet leading 2325 with 125 watts per channel (minimum measured at the time). It was a beast and very heavy. I loved that receiver and kept it for ages. IMHO it was the best stereo receiver of it's time.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I was lucky enough to grow up as a teenager in the 70s. Had plenty of those 35,45-watt rms rated 2 channel Stereo receivers, that's what they were called with the A and B speaker selector, two buttons A/B and I used both pushed in running 4 speakers all the time. Blew a lot of tweeters, All on me I would get to about 11-12 O'clock on the volume dial and say to myself, this sounds nice let's go up to 2 O'clock, tweeters started crackling.
I was having lunch yesterday with a friend, who's the regional sales manager for KEF and he was telling me about someone who wanted the same speakers that were part of the subject of a recent AH thread. In the thread, the OP was telling about his system and we got to the subject of blowing speakers, power output, volume control displays and how few actually understand what they're looking at. At one point, I said "People just need to read the manual" and he started laughing. I then said "I'm here all week- try the Veal" because he worked in retail AV sales for a long time and this is still a big problem.

FYI- rated output IS NOT at fully cranked volume control, it's around 12:00-1:00 on most receivers with a rotary volume control. The only reason it goes farther is because some source material is at a lower level, so it needs to be turned up. We repaired a lot of speakers in the late-'70s-through the 1980s......

Then, there are the AVRs with 0-100 or a readout in -xxxdB. 0-100 tells nobody anything. The taper of the control isn't known, so it's all guesswork. Using the -xxxdB scale doesn't tell a lot of people anything because they don't understand decibels and it's the scale I use for all of my installations when possible because it provides a visual landmark during instructions- I tell people that they shouldn't pass -15dB if I can't set a limit and if I can do that, I ALWAYS set it at that point because it allows the system to have some headroom and since I always lock the configuration, they can't mess with it unless they figure out that it only takes a mouse click to unlock it. OTOH, if they change the limit, blow speakers and change it back to where I set it, I know they did it because there's no way the speakers will blow at my setting. I would prefer that unlocking required a password, but.....

I had a customer around 1980 who bought the same model of speakers that I owned and with his new Pioneer SX-780, he roasted the mids and tweeters. Someone from the service department told him that they were damaged from abuse and I can't think of a single speaker manufacturer that covers damage to more than one driver in a system. His dad came in to give us what-for and he loudly said "My son doesn't use his system that way!". I asked if he's at home all day, to see how it's used and he calmly said "Can you call when it's done?". I intervened in the billing and since we were the second US dealer for that brand, they wouldn't have turned us down for a warranty claim, so the dad was very happy when he found out that there would be no charge.

I ran into the kid about fifteen years ago at a Rush show and he asked if I was the guy from the stereo store. When I told him I didn't recognize him, he said "You told me I blew my speakers in a way that you had never seen" and when I said "Oh, I remember now", he just hung his head.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I was lucky enough to grow up as a teenager in the 70s. Had plenty of those 35,45-watt rms rated 2 channel Stereo receivers, that's what they were called with the A and B speaker selector, two buttons A/B and I used both pushed in running 4 speakers all the time. Blew a lot of tweeters, All on me I would get to about 11-12 O'clock on the volume dial and say to myself, this sounds nice let's go up to 2 O'clock, tweeters started crackling.
Do you remember the speaker brand and model? A lot of speakers had very cheap components and minimal crossovers, so it was understandable that they blew. A 5W tweeter and a single cap doth not a speaker system make.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Do you remember the speaker brand and model? A lot of speakers had very cheap components and minimal crossovers, so it was understandable that they blew. A 5W tweeter and a single cap doth not a speaker system make.
That era was also pre ferrofluid, so you had to be careful with tweeters. I used to design to cross at 5 KHz for my KEFs and for the STC/Coles 10 KHz. Ferrofluid increased the power handling of tweeters by leaps and bounds. That was a good job, as power really increased. My Mullard tube amp was 10 watts per channel. My first solid state amp the Quad 303 was 45 watts per channel, the 405s were 100 watts per channel which was thought to be very high power. Now I have the 909s at 250 watts per channel. I have seven of those in the rig, and a couple of 405-2s. The whole conundrum revolves around that fact the you have to produce 10 times the amp power to make it seem twice as loud. That fact is the cause of speakers being blown.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
With most AVRs offering 100-150WPC, I also don’t get why they can’t do at least 100WPC/8ohms.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
With most AVRs offering 100-150WPC, I also don’t get why they can’t do at least 100WPC/8ohms.
The difference between 75 watts and 100 watts is insignificant. They should be able to produce 150 watts into 4 ohms. If they want to make a significant difference then you need 150 watts 8 ohms and at least 250 watts four ohms.
 
Tankini

Tankini

Senior Audioholic
FYI- rated output IS NOT at fully cranked volume control, it's around 12:00-1:00 on most receivers with a rotary volume control
That was my point. FYI: ;) Without going into long drawn out explanation of theory and application.:)
 
Tankini

Tankini

Senior Audioholic
That era was also pre ferrofluid, so you had to be careful with tweeters. I used to design to cross at 5 KHz for my KEFs and for the STC/Coles 10 KHz. Ferrofluid increased the power handling of tweeters by leaps and bounds. That was a good job, as power really increased. My Mullard tube amp was 10 watts per channel. My first solid state amp the Quad 303 was 45 watts per channel, the 405s were 100 watts per channel which was thought to be very high power. Now I have the 909s at 250 watts per channel. I have seven of those in the rig, and a couple of 405-2s. The whole conundrum revolves around that fact the you have to produce 10 times the amp power to make it seem twice as loud. That fact is the cause of speakers being blown.
"Ferrofluid" Product of NASA, "magnetic fluid". Invented at Glenn Research Center. (spinoff.nasa.gov) Very nice post.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
The difference between 75 watts and 100 watts is insignificant.
Yes. We all know this fact 100 years ago. The more reason it should NOT be an issue to offer 100W, instead of 75W.

Since we all know 25W is insignificant and EASY to get, they should make it 100W.

Again, to spell it out, since it’s so easy to get 100-150WPC in a AVR, they should make this Marantz at least 100WPC.
 
Last edited:
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
That era was also pre ferrofluid, so you had to be careful with tweeters. I used to design to cross at 5 KHz for my KEFs and for the STC/Coles 10 KHz. Ferrofluid increased the power handling of tweeters by leaps and bounds. That was a good job, as power really increased. My Mullard tube amp was 10 watts per channel. My first solid state amp the Quad 303 was 45 watts per channel, the 405s were 100 watts per channel which was thought to be very high power. Now I have the 909s at 250 watts per channel. I have seven of those in the rig, and a couple of 405-2s. The whole conundrum revolves around that fact the you have to produce 10 times the amp power to make it seem twice as loud. That fact is the cause of speakers being blown.
It wasn't pre-ferro fluid- Phillips tweeters were available with it in the late-70s and I have some from a pair of their car speakers, as well as the original tweeters in my Jamo J-101 speakers. The ones I was referring to were from most Japanese speaker brands and the US-based companies that wanted to push boxes out the door in huge numbers, although many regional small operations were using much better components, even if they didn't really grasp the benefits of better crossover design. One brand had a big problem with blown tweeters, so they shipped the parts for modifying the crossovers as a way to reduce the warranty claims. Another problem was the lack of understanding about this- store owners and salespeople didn't always come from a technical background, so they would explain it in a way they thought they understood which, unfortunately an annoyingly, was wrong. The guy I worked for said that the coil and resistor for the Graphics Speaker tweeter modification "loaded the tweeter down", which was his way of thinking about it. It's kind of correct, but he didn't say anything about it changing the crossover slope. Others in the audio business just made it up as they went along and I really hated dealing with that- it was a huge waste of time getting people to 'unlearn' what they had been told.
 
Tankini

Tankini

Senior Audioholic
Do you remember the speaker brand and model? A lot of speakers had very cheap components and minimal crossovers, so it was understandable that they blew. A 5W tweeter and a single cap doth not a speaker system make.
Cheap speakers still to this day use paper tweeters.
 
Tankini

Tankini

Senior Audioholic
Yes. We all know this fact 100 years ago. The more reason it should NOT be an issue to offer 100W, instead of 75W.

Since we all know 25W is insignificant and EASY to get, they should make it 100W.

Again, to spell it out, since it’s so easy to get 100WPC in a cheap AVR, they should make this Marantz at least 100WPC.
That should be a minimum standard in industry 100-watt X 2 rms @ 8 Ohm load. THD @ 0.003 with Higher slew rate.;):)
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
The difference between 75 watts and 100 watts is insignificant. They should be able to produce 150 watts into 4 ohms. If they want to make a significant difference then you need 150 watts 8 ohms and at least 250 watts four ohms.
It's not insignificant when someone is trying to get 100W of output from a 75W receiver.

150W into 4 Ohms from a 75W receiver designed for 8 Ohms? Good luck with that. At that time, it might output 76W into 4 Ohms, or possibly less. The power supplies may have been heavy, but they weren't very robust. My first receiver was a Pioneer SX-525 and was rated at 17W/channel. I took it to a McIntosh amplifier clinic where they checked output vs distortion and the printout showed a blistering 13W/channel @1% THD. Oh, boy. Never blew a speaker with it, either.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top