Comments on: Marantz brand director Ken Ishiwata

By: esoterror

esoterror — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:45:18 +0000

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.

By: Watcher3223

Watcher3223 — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:34:01 +0000

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.

By: esoterror

esoterror — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 10:34:41 +0000

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.

By: esoterror

esoterror — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:47:15 +0000

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.

By: Watcher3223

Watcher3223 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:41:38 +0000

“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.

By: Watcher3223

Watcher3223 — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:30:26 +0000

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?

By: esoterror

esoterror — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:44:37 +0000

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.

By: Watcher3223

Watcher3223 — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:21:04 +0000

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.

By: Watcher3223

Watcher3223 — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:09:52 +0000

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.

By: esoterror

esoterror — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:37:14 +0000

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.