|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.87.193.180
In Reply to: Vintage vs New - McIntosh vs Rogue? posted by benhen on February 23, 2007 at 09:44:55:
It's a no-brainer. To say the Marantz is sonically superior is to say that 40 years of development and evolution is irrelevent. Just look at it from a part by part standpoint.
Now you Marantz owners (I love Marantz gear) don't attack me and twist it to say that I'm saying the Marantz does not sound good. I know it does.
Rogue is everything Audio Research is sinically and even better built in most cases.
I own and love ARC gear too but Rogue is now the big kid on the block. We won't even talk about the price differences.
Follow Ups:
are you referring to Marantz gear? Then you segway into Audio Research
gear. I have owned Macs, Marantz, and presently own a AR Classic 60 and I can tell you they all are excellent amplifiers.
I've asked this question ad naseum and NO BODY gives a clear response. what exactly has progressed in the past 40 years with respect to tube amplifiers? besides paralleling 14,000 tubes for 1.21 gigawatts ;-)I'm am NOT talking about better caps, resistors, wire, etc. (which you can install in vintage amps) I'm talking how much better are modern transformers compared to McIntosh and marantz's tour de force from the golden era? are they even better? if so, how much better?
what's changed in tube amp circuit topology in the last 40 years?
and to realte to this thread, but specifically makes the rogue better sonically than the mcintosh MC225, besides output power.
Not much. Claims about huge advancements are marketing hype. The basic circuits are the same.I hate to rain on anybodies parade but I don’t particularly like the McIntosh stuff. To my ears, a re-worked stereo 70 beats a 225 hands down for a 3rd of the cost.
thanks for your post Marty. as i said before everyone's ears are different. i had the opportunity to compare my MC225 to a heavily modded Dyna stereo 70. it was the one in vacuum tube valley nearly 10 years ago (geez, I'm getting old :-(it had a cast aluminum module over where the stock circuit board was. if my memory serves me correct, it had an EF86 and a 6J5 per side with cool tuning eye level indicators. regulated power supply and just all around built to the hilt. we ran it up against my restored MC225, running 400uf of filtering on the front end. we all liked the mac better. both amps had sweet, sweet mids/highs, but the bass slam of the unity coupled mac amps is hard to beat, at least for a tube amp.
You asked for a synopsis of 40 years of delevelopment?!
Do you have any idea how much all (tubes included) technology has progressed?
Do you realize that tubes are primarily used for hundreds of RF applications?
If you are willing to pay for someone to stay home from work and write for hundreds or thousands of hours to explain to you the advancements of the last 40 years?
Again. Listen for yourself and buy what sounds good and you like.
Something tells me you won't believe what you hear!
Wow!
truly knowledgeable people can surmise a few basic principles that point the student in the right direction. fakers attack those who they fear might expose them as a fraud.still waiting to hear some of your worldly expertise chief. you say you are a college professor. TEACH ME!
What has 40 years of progress brought us?
Again!
Listen for yourself and buy what you like!
Who cares about my opinions?
Unless you are taking my (semester length) course, I suggest a simple alternative. Listen for yourself and then decide.
Wow.
wow? meaning you think I'm an idiot for asking?well, if that's the case, then i think you have no idea either because you can't give me an educated response. not even a damn link to help educate me on my question.
it's not like i was being a dick in my post. i was very humble and asked for someone to teach me about the progression of technology regarding tube amps.
and to the point, listen and see for myself? what the heck does that have to do with anything? I've listened to many new tube amps, including a pair of Lamm monoblocks on eggleston andra II for extended periods. i liked my Bozak 302A and McIntosh MC60s better for the jazz i was listening too. it was my CD, it was my friend's audio salon.
my personal sonic preference means nothing with regards to how much tube amps have technologically progressed.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: