Marantz Stereo 70s

[highfigh]

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.

How old are you??????????????

 

[highfigh]

"Ferrofluid" Product of NASA, "magnetic fluid". Invented at Glenn Research Center. (spinoff.nasa.gov) Very nice post.

Are you familiar with active suspension in performance cars? They use Ferro Fluid in those. I watched a video around 20 years ago with Rod Millen showing his system and it's very interesting.

 

[Tankini]

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

I often pondered that also, take Yamaha for example, two channel output on their R-S202BL, 100 x 2 @ 8 Ohms cheap! $149.00

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I often pondered that also, take Yamaha for example, two channel output on their R-S202BL, 100 x 2 @ 8 Ohms cheap! $149.00

Wow. $150 for YAMAHA 100W x 2CH into 8 ohms. So all these Integrated amps and stereo/network receivers should have at least 100W if not 200W.

 

[Tankini]

Are you familiar with active suspension in performance cars? They use Ferro Fluid in those. I watched a video around 20 years ago with Rod Millen showing his system and it's very interesting.

You got a link? Would very much like to read up on.

 

[Tankini]

Wow. $150 for 100W x 2CH into 8 ohms. So all these Integrated amps and stereo/network receivers should have at least 100W if not 200W.

I got to say this is a very interesting thread. I agree with both your post and TLSGuy's comments. Well 3 posts, Highfive has very Valid points. My opinion and that's all it is nothing valid about it, but I agree with 150 rms @ 8 Ohm load " Continuous" my sweet spot. 200 rms @ 8 Ohm load, definitely. A lot of higher-end speakers have an impedance drop "dip" to two Ohm load. I'm in the camp of 200-300 rms mono-block amps, dedicated power supply for each speaker. But I get it, may not be practical in HT use space and cost.

 

[Tankini]

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*

See what you started? Well done, Sir!

 

[Tankini]

And people still buy them.

It's for the reasons you stated why I cannot listen to boom boxes. I won't and never have owned one
.
Oh, yes back in1973 had some cheap very cheap speakers. RadioShack speakers remember, but yeah cheap paper tweeters. Even cheaper was pair of brand Lloyds. If my memory is correct, first Stereo receiver was 25 watts times 2. May have even been 15 watts x 2 not quite sure. Had a dedicated 8 track player and a cheap turntable. 4 speakers each had tweeter and 8" driver in them.

 

[PENG]

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.

That's not really 2.1. 2.1 should work like 5.1 except there are only two front/main channels. The way the C70's is, you can't send a discrete subwoofer channel contents to the sub amp. I want real 2.1 because I use Dirac Live PC stand alone version with bass control. To do that, Dirac has to be able to Correct/EQ the subwoofer channel.

 

[TLS Guy]

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.

There may have been the odd tweeter with ferrofluid in the seventies. However, I don't recall seeing it in the raw speakers parts suppliers catalogs until the early eighties. The first tweeters I bought that contained ferrofluid were the Dynaudio D21 AF and D 28AF. I may have bought a German made Titanium tweeter around that time probably 1979 come to think of it. I can tell you ferrofluid tweeters were not common until around 1980 give or take a year. As usual the Audiophools were against them and said they 'blurred' the sound, or some nonsense like that.

 

[Mikado463]

after reading the specs for this thing I didn't see a 4 ohm rating ? After years of owning di-poles (planars and stats) if an amp couldn't 'dbl-down' I never would give it a second look ..........

 

[TLS Guy]

after reading the specs for this thing I didn't see a 4 ohm rating ? After years of owning di-poles (planars and stats) if an amp couldn't 'dbl-down' I never would give it a second look ..........

You are basically correct about that. However power amps with simple power supplies will come close to doubling down, but won't quite. The more complex power supplies do give rise to more failures because of the much higher part count. The real point is though, is the output stage robust enough to handle the current of the lower impedance? The answer far too often these days is no.

 

[Mikado463]

The real point is though, is the output stage robust enough to handle the current of the lower impedance? The answer far too often these days is no.

translation, todays modern cheap AVR is just that...........cheap !

 

[Tankini]

That's not really 2.1. 2.1 should work like 5.1 except there are only two front/main channels. The way the C70's is, you can't send a discrete subwoofer channel contents to the sub amp. I want real 2.1 because I use Dirac Live PC stand alone version with bass control. To do that, Dirac has to be able to Correct/EQ the subwoofer channel.

My Yamaha A4A will only do 2.1 with" Extra Bass" set to on. With L/R mains set to large. That isn't" true 2.1" right?

 

[lovinthehd]

translation, todays modern cheap AVR is just that...........cheap !

How are they less so than yesterday's receivers? Or most integrated amps? I'll still take any of my modern avrs over the Marantz I had in the 70s....

 

[lovinthehd]

My Yamaha A4A will only do 2.1 with" Extra Bass" set to on. With L/R mains set to large. That isn't" true 2.1" right?

It's not using a crossover so limited 2.1 (and there is no native 2.1 content)....but I thought Yamahas did have a mode where sub/crossover can be used in 2ch mode....

 

[Mikado463]

How are they less so than yesterday's receivers? Or most integrated amps? I'll still take any of my modern avrs over the Marantz I had in the 70s....

my response was in reference to what I quoted from TLS, nowhere did I say 'all modern' AVR, just cheap ones. Now if you want to argue that point, go ahead, you'll be in the minority ! But then you made mock of my choice of amplification, I'll wait for you to show me ANY modern receiver that is more capable.

 

[lovinthehd]

my response was in reference to what I quoted from TLS, nowhere did I say 'all modern' AVR, just cheap ones. Now if you want to argue that point, go ahead, you'll be in the minority ! But then you made mock of my choice of amplification, I'll wait for you to show me ANY modern receiver that is more capable.

Just read it a bit differently. Sure, some very low end avrs aren't worth buying. Same goes for a lot of consumer electronics. I think I remember what power amp you use....it's a decently powerful amp.

 

[PENG]

My Yamaha A4A will only do 2.1 with" Extra Bass" set to on. With L/R mains set to large. That isn't" true 2.1" right?

Right, no 2.1 content, but it should be easy enough for them to implement 3 channels such that when you run Audyssey, YPAO, or DL, the sub channel, ie the 3rd channel, can be pinged separately (the sweep chirp/tone) just like what you can do with an AVR or AVP.

So I guess I define the .1 channel as a discrete channel that can receive it's own filters and target curve. Without such feature, DL, or Audyssey can't really do a whole lot correcting/eq'ing as much as it would end up correcting/eq'ing the sub and the mains together, still better than nothing, I guess, and based on my own measurements with REW.

 

[TLS Guy]

My Yamaha A4A will only do 2.1 with" Extra Bass" set to on. With L/R mains set to large. That isn't" true 2.1" right?

I don't think you have that right. If you set any speaker to small, then you can set the crossover to the sub from 40 to 200 Hz. If you set a speaker to large it will get the full frequency range, and bass below crossover will get sent to the subs plus the LFE. That is very standard practice. What is not is the extra bass setting if there is no sub. So then extra bass is sent to the right and left speaker. The daft idea is to make it sound as if you have a sub when you don't. That sounds like a speaker buster to me.

I could see no reason why this receiver can not produce 2.1 sound like any other receiver. So yes, it does do 2.1 if you have a sub.

The Dolby Atmos is strange. So if you have a standard 7.1 layout, but also what looks like front wides, but high near the ceiling, then if the receiver detects Dolby Atmos, it disconnects the rear backs and connects those amps to the wide height speakers. That sounds less than useful to me. So it is not really a proper Atmos arrangement, but may be it bests a sound bar.