All About vintage pro audio
This guy is cool, I think I’ll invite him to my next party !
tell me what did you achief in your live?????
remember that music lover all over the
world give him his status………
,,without critisism there is no incentive to try harder, therefore Mr. Ishiwata will have to try harder to impress me as well as getting over his self-induced artistic expressionism.
I know you will…….but you have to by
creative and work hard nothing coms for
nothing to by a clear winner whether we like it or not …so I think this is the biggest insult that could be pointed at someone like mister ken ishiwata dedicated work
I want to join this company and grow a ponytail and speak words of wisdom to impress people so I can make lots of money & buy fancy cars so I can pick up ****** and take them home to comfort my soul.
personally, i own a very nice 2215b vintage.
this thing is amazing!
4ohm loads 100% analog
KEN is completely correct about his explanations of the companies standards.
try the vintage receivers if you cant afford the newer/modern models.
peace,sinc,jay
sorry I retyped it because I spelt it wrong. I realised you got the point but your reply landed in between before I had time to post.
Since you can’t seem to take a hint….
You’re preaching to the choir.
As for WHY it’s commoditized: getting the most for the least amount of money possible.
Sony usually used their own D/A converters when it came to making very low end or very high end players and some midrange players.
Otherwise, they outsource from many companies. In addition to Philips, Sony has also used Burr-Brown DACs in some of their models.
I’m aware of commoditization, an important aspect of mass production.
But, you stated surprise about Marantz using Matsushita parts.
Philips era Marantz players will most likely use Philips transports because Philips is a major commodity supplier of drives; they can supply their own drives cheaper than outsourcing from a third party.
But, D/A converters may be different, depending on the design goals; for the CD-3577 it may have been cheaper to use a Matsushita D/A than using their own.
Again commoditisation of Hi-Fi as I said above…
Well Sony used Philips TDA 1541 DAC but that wasn’t the point, which was that generally as you said Marantz CD player were almost exclsuively based on Philips technology, and since Philips was the market leader well into the ’90s, technology-wise, this was no bad thing.
A lot of Marantz’s models were originally Marantz and Philips models sold outside of Japan.
The CD-11, for instance, is a Philips LHH-500 that was sold originally in Japan.
But, you made your point, so okay. I retract as far as CD players go.
CD 63 and CD 100 were practically the same price, in the UK anyway. CD73 has definite alterations to the Philips 303 but these are both 1st gen machines so not surprising differentiations increased as time went on…
Classic Marantz CD players apart from those above? what about CD54, 84, 94, 65II,75II, 85, 95, well that’s pretty much everything they made in the ’80s, what about then in the ’90s, CD10,11, 12,14, 40, 42, 62, 63II,67,72, 80…I could go on.
Marantz is marketed as a premium audio brand, but if build quality and engineering isn’t much better than lower cost competitors, including from Philips themselves, then what’s the point of spending the extra money?
Technics was supposed to be Panasonic’s premium range, except Technics ended up selling models from low end of the spectrum to high, being competitive with low end Sony to high end Denon.
I didn’t say that Marantz used Sony parts but saying that a CD player I had wasn’t much better than a Sony CD player. However, a lot of CD players use Sony EFM and CIRC decoders.
However, the Marantz I owned did use a Matsushita D/A.
As for Philips using Sony or Matsushita parts, why would you be surprised?
Open up any piece of electronics and you will find a pretty good number of component parts from companies you’d think were fierce competitors.
Well I’ve never seen that particular model and frankly it’s pretty surprisng that Marantz would use Sony and Matsushita parts when they were owned by Philips so I think you there have the exception that proves the rule.
Anyway there’s nothing wrong with MASH either as a lot of people like it and Technics weren’t exactly low rent in the ’80s either.
There are definitely good Marantz CD players from the 1980’s, but you would’ve also likely have gotten, more or less, the same quality by buying a high end Philips CD deck and saved money for not buying the Marantz name.
For instance, why buy a Marantz CD-63 when a Philips CD-100 is the exact same player but with different cosmetics and a lower price?
“Not to mention practically every CD player Marantz produced in the 80’s and 90’s was at the top of its prospective market sector.”
That’s a stretch.
Unless you bought their high end offerings, their CD players were average.
For instance, I used to own a Marantz CD-3577.
Build quality and engineering wasn’t much better than a mid-range Sony and the D/A converter was a Matsushita Electric MASH.
You could’ve gotten equivalent performance from a Technics CD player of similar vintage for less.
To say everything with the Marantz name on it made in the ’70s was outstanding is also untrue. You have only to look at their tape recorders?
In the ’80s they did produce cheaper products as well but they also produced the Esotec series, the TT-1000 turntable, the PM84 and PM94 amplifiers. Not to mention practically every CD player Marantz prodcued in the ’80s and ’90s was at the top of it’s prospective market sector.
What you are I think referring to is the general state of mass manufacture since the 1980s and the increasing commoditisation of Hi-Fi equipment into a wider market afforded by digital audio.
It’s unfair to single out Marantz in this as it afflicts most of the larger audio companies. If that’s what you mean then you should go back to Superscope aquiring Marantz in ‘64 when they ceased to be a small specialist company and moved into the wider audio market.
Innovation doesn’t always equal quality.
And, a lot of Marantz components under Philips were cheap plastic junk; the finer examples of Marantz under Philips were more the exception rather than the norm.
Disagree. Marantz had some of it’s finest years under Philips? not to denigrate the earlier history but Philips the was one of the most innovative audio companies in the world and with their technology, Marantz produced some of the best CD players ever made like the CD12 which continue to be referenced today. This man in the interview above has been there since the mid ’80s.
He’s right its all about the music NOT the stereo!