Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 77
  1. #51
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    Thank you so much, Topspeed. Someone had to say it.

    C'mon gents, break it up, shake hands...every week you guys square off in debate after debate using big words most of us common folk don't understand. You want to fight each other? I ENCOURAGE it...go ahead....but just think...e-mail would be more private and allow you to say what was really on your minds.

    It's somewhat discouraging to see 2 of the most helpful posters on the forum constantly engaged in a battle of good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, Paradigm vs.metal tweeters suck...you get my point.

    I would like to know...was there ever a time when you two got along? Which post started the big rift?

    Cheers guys!
    Sure we get along - just not on audio related topics - no crime in that. We do both agree that Tom Baker was the best Doctor Who - I think Wooch still values LP's - we agree conceptually on what makes the best home theater.

    But agreeing is hardly fun. It is more fun to find one part of someone's arguement and then blow it out of proportion so you can make this thread go on and on. I attempted the out several posts back. I've made my points to Topspeed on the way stats are manipulated or to general to be of use...I'm correct. The funny thing is basically after 20 years the American have caught the Europeans...considering every says how lousy the European cars are - I find the entire pro American car stance rather humourous. The Americans are great cars because they have caught and are a virtuyal tie with the crappily built European cars? Now that's funny.

  2. #52
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    But, for argument's sake I'll entertain your question. The simple answer is no, of course not.
    The only relevant answer to American car BUYERS. The average numbers are ffor feel good issues.


    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    And the long answer is that the CU press release and the USA Today article were never intended to answer that type of question. I mean, that question of whether a Chrysler is more reliable than a BMW is just as irrelevant to the content of the article as whether a Chrysler PT Cruiser is more reliable than a BMW 3-series, or whether a 2003 PT Cruiser with a turbo engine is more reliable than a 2003 BMW M3, or whether a 2003 PT Cruiser with turbo engine has more front suspension failures than a 2003 BMW M3's front suspension. You're basically creating exceptions and asterisks to suit your biases. Of course, you'll find specific European cars that are more reliable than certain American models. But, then again, in the previous 23 years when European cars as a whole routinely had lower defect rates than American ones, I could've just as easily found specific American car models that were more reliable than specific European cars.
    Yes you could so could I...again which is more relevant to the actual BUYER? You and I and most people with any BASIC understanding of stats know this. Many peoiple read an article of gross generalizaions that serve a buyer absolutely NO GOOD whatsoever may believe - lots' of ignorant people that that means they're safe buying an American car reliability wise and not safe buying a BMW. I used Focus to illustrate that no in fact going off that stat alone is not safe as the Focus is the most recalled car since the 1980 model Lemon Aid mentioned...That is why the stat doesn't help anyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    So, we should now call Saab an American car, even though the entire design team and manufacturing facility are in Sweden? Or that all along we should have called Mazda an American car as well because Ford has held a stake in the company since the 70s? Or maybe we should now call Chryslers German cars, even though not a single Chrysler model is actually designed and manufactured in Germany? Or start calling Nissan/Infiniti a French car just because Renault holds a majority stake, even though most of the design and manufacturing operations are in either Japan or the U.S.? Your search for straws to grasp onto just to maintain this pathological need to bash American cars is getting absurd.
    Know it is you who perceives that I'm attacking American cars...You're first question? You tell me? If you buy a company you're not going to stick your head in the door and make changes that need to be made or accidentally make changes that don't need to be made...it's never happened. Ford execs didn't go in and make any changes to Mazda? Are you sure? There are no straws...the lines between what constitutes an American car today and what it did 50 years ago is hardly the same. Lemon Aid made the point about three Chryslers "The best 3 cars Chrysler never built." So do they count as Amercan cars? I said the same in my response to Topspeed. You can't have it both ways...you have to define for me what consitutes an Amercian car and what consitutes a European or Japanese car. If Saab is European because it's made in Sweden then Honda is American because it's made in America - or Canada - and oif we go by parts? Then we're in bigger trouble - because it will be a 13 year old girl in Mexico for all we know. BTW because you are generally humourless what "for all we know" means is that I don't know nor am I suggesting that this is the case in any way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    And before you now veer off onto yet another wild mental adventure bashing the whole journalism profession, keep in mind that USA Today was not the only newspaper that wrote an article about CU's findings. CU puts out a summary press release like that every year, and newspapers write about it every year. The previous 23 years detailed out how American cars were less reliable than the European and Asian brands, and newspapers wrote about that.
    Two wrongs don't make a right. I understand that the article is suggesting an entire industry trend but it still doesn't say anything of value not then not now. Especially not now when they are a virtual tie. The trend is helpful to exactly who?


    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    If you're so obsessive about cars catching fire, no wonder you don't drive. First off, how often do cars, especially newer ones, just spontaneously catch fire? Even among the cases of the Ford Explorers with the exploding tires, we're looking at a total of about 80 documented cases. Out of the half million or so Explorers that are sold every year, that hardly makes for something that I would lose sleep over. An electrical system problem that can potentially strand me in the middle of nowhere is a more immediate concern (and something that Acura discovered AFTER I had already shelled out $400 and ruined a 4th of July holiday).
    No I do drive - I just don't have a vehicle because to get a student loan you must own a car valued at under $5k. But you can not get a car loan on used cars more than I think 3 years old. You need a personal loan - whcih they won't give you unless you're employed...I'm in school so unless I buy a beater it's the bus - I'd rather buy good stereo equipment and take the bus than buy a wreck. If I was mechanically inclined a beater would be an option otherwise ...

    Ohh and there are 200 deaths and 700 injuries related to those explorers flipping over due to the tires. And those numbers are not all in yet. Interesting that the same tire on other vehicles DON'T have the problems.

    "The complaint alleges that the Ford Explorer, the best-selling SUV in history, is a defective vehicle based on an unreasonable tendency to roll over. To conceal this dangerous condition, plaintiffs allege, Ford recommended that tires used on Explorers be underinflated, which had the consequence of increasing the likelihood of tire separation."What's at issue in this case is constant defects that caused constant risks," explained plaintiffs' attorney Elizabeth Cabraser. "Consumers thought they were getting a car that would not roll over, a tire that wouldn't come apart."

    In addition to the federal lawsuit, the Ford Explorer has been the target of hundreds of product liability lawsuits. In suits against it, Firestone claimed the design of the Explorer played a role in the accidents. In 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration it found that the Ford Explorer was no more rollover-prone than other SUVs. Many plaintiffs' attorneys and vehicle experts disagree with this conclusion, and litigation against Ford has continued.
    Ford has refused to publicly disclose how many lawsuits it has been forced to defend because of defect allegations leveled against the Explorer. Ford has prevailed in certain cases. In others, Fort has entered into confidential settlements. Ford will not reveal how many cases have been settled out of court. The settlements have cost Ford millions. In one case, a woman who suffered a spinal cord injury that left paralyzed her from the neck down after a two-door Ford Explorer crashed received, according to press reports, between $20 million and $35 million.
    Allegations of Wrongful Conduct Made Against Ford
    The Ford Explorer is the successor to the Ford Bronco II. In the late 1980s, Consumer Reports published an article that was critical of the Bronco II's safety performance and advised consumer to avoid purchasing the Bronco II. The Explorer was introduced to the U.S. market in 1990.
    Plaintiffs allege that Ford's internal testing revealed that the Explorer, like the Bronco II, had significant handling and stability defects. As alleged in the master complaint (paragraphs 64-66) in the federal lawsuit:
    The testing showed the Explorer was prone to rollovers when equipped with tires inflated to the manufacturer's recommended inflation pressure. An internal Ford Test Report dated November 25, 1988, showed, for example, that the Explorer lifted two wheels off the ground while cornering at 55 miles per hour due to a combination of the vehicle's high center of gravity, its fully inflated tires, and the suspension system structure. In so-called "J-turn testing," the Explorer rolled over in 5 of 12 tests, while the Chevrolet Blazer (the Explorer's main competitor) and even the problematic Bronco II experienced no similar rollovers.

    In a June 15, 1989, internal memo to Ford management, Ford engineers recommended eight design changes to address the rollover problem and improve the safety of the Explorer. . . . Making these changes would have taken ten months or more, which would have delayed the planned launch of the Explorer. Ford management directed the engineers to make only those minor changes that would not affect production deadlines. Ford understood that such minor changes would not correct the stability and handling problems identified during the Explorer's development." (Vehicle injuries).


    No this is the reason I don't exactly trust Ford for my safety...not because it WILL happen but that Ford doesn't care if it does.


    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Like I keep saying, if you want specifics, they're out there for you to look up. But, that still doesn't change the aggregate defect rate. You want to believe that American cars are unreliable, I'm sure you'll keep finding examples that support your case, but that certainly doesn't support the blanket condemnation that you keep throwing around.
    Compared to Japanese cars even the article you presented confirms that American cars are 50% less reliable than Japanese cars. 12 times 50% is 6 = 18. blanket condemnation...heck these are the numbers you proivided right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    CU DOES post the coproduced car models separately if you want to look them up. And since you started this post on the subject of lies, how does a higher defect rate mean that "American cars across the board fall apart 50% more often than Japanese cars"? I don't know about you, but here in California I don't see too many cars that just fall apart. Maybe you've been breathing too much of that road salt to tell the difference between something that needs repair versus something that is on the ground in pieces.
    SO now CR is wrong in California? The have 50% more problems according to the stats...California is immune...What is the Terminator fixing all the cars? 50% more defects. Oh surely this was not all about initial runs off the line...oh I thought we were talking about reliability. Designing something to last 90 days versus something that will last 5 -10 years...Ahh now we need a whole new set of stats...the used car guides.

    Leaf through CR and Lemon Aid and choose the biggest selling categories familiy sedans say and see how they compare of 3-5 year old model results. Longitudinal studies mean something...more than initial tests. Perhaps why I should not blame CR for saying the Grand Am was good. After all for the first few thousand K nothing went wrong - and their reviewers probably found the same...then a few years later we got a better idea as to it going from excellent to poor.

  3. #53
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Ohh and there are 200 deaths and 700 injuries related to those explorers flipping over due to the tires. And those numbers are not all in yet. Interesting that the same tire on other vehicles DON'T have the problems.

    "The complaint alleges that the Ford Explorer, the best-selling SUV in history, is a defective vehicle based on an unreasonable tendency to roll over. To conceal this dangerous condition, plaintiffs allege, Ford recommended that tires used on Explorers be underinflated, which had the consequence of increasing the likelihood of tire separation."What's at issue in this case is constant defects that caused constant risks," explained plaintiffs' attorney Elizabeth Cabraser. "Consumers thought they were getting a car that would not roll over, a tire that wouldn't come apart."

    .
    Actually Ford and Firestone are both at fault on this one. The Firestone tires were defective and had problems regardless of what vehicle they were on. The ocurrence rate was higher with the Ford Explorer due to the vehicle's design defect. Just about every SUV or high center of gravity vehicle with the defective Firestone tires on them had the same issues just not at the same rate. Both companies are being sued and both are paying out the wazoo right now.

    I work for a very large auto insurance company and both Ford and Firestone are paying back my company and others for our payments toward these accidents.

    Fact is, Fireston's tire's were defective and fell apart regardless of what air pressure they were run at. Would a tire low on pressure be more prone to fail, yes, but Ford's recc. to run the tires at lower pressures in reality had nothing to do with it. 99.99999% of people out there look at the side of their tire for the recc. tire pressure. However, that point is being raised and use against Ford with success.


    JSE

  4. #54
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Know it is you who perceives that I'm attacking American cars...You're first question? You tell me?
    RGA's ORIGINAL QUOTE: But hey people buy American cars for some reason - it sure has nothing to do with reliability.

    Wooch's ORIGINAL RESPONSE: Yeah, and people buy European cars for some reason as well, even though their reliability now ranks at the bottom.

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos...r-reports_x.htm

    And then that set off an avalanche of Lemon Aid quotes and mangling of statistical concepts on your part. Just in case you forgot, you began this whole exchange with a GENERALITY. And I responded with a GENERALITY that contradicted what you asserted. How this sets off all these other nonsequiters in your head is anyone's guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    BTW because you are generally humourless what "for all we know" means is that I don't know nor am I suggesting that this is the case in any way.
    We'll let that underhanded statement stand on its own. Where you were going with that, who knows.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Two wrongs don't make a right. I understand that the article is suggesting an entire industry trend but it still doesn't say anything of value not then not now. Especially not now when they are a virtual tie. The trend is helpful to exactly who?
    Why are you now so concerned about who the trend is helpful for, when you started this whole thing with a sweeping generalization in the first place? Who was it helpful to when you made your initial comment about American cars?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    SO now CR is wrong in California? The have 50% more problems according to the stats...California is immune...What is the Terminator fixing all the cars? 50% more defects. Oh surely this was not all about initial runs off the line...oh I thought we were talking about reliability. Designing something to last 90 days versus something that will last 5 -10 years...Ahh now we need a whole new set of stats...the used car guides.
    It really gets amusing to see how you twist things around to avoid having to take responsibility for the reckless exaggerations and abuses of wordage that you perpetrate in some of your responses. All I was pointing out was that there's a HUGE difference between something that needs REPAIR (which is what reliability indices measure) versus something that FALLS APART (which is a physical state in which something was in one piece but is no longer). How you now get this into a diatribe that implies that CR is wrong in Cali or that it implies immunity is a pretty wide leap of illogic even by the standards you've established on this thread. You were saying that American cars FALL APART 50% more often than Japanese cars. You're welcome to cite a source that spells that out, but it certainly wasn't CU that said that.

  5. #55
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Are you in league...Never mentioned the Marquis?
    Check your post on 3/30 "GOOD BUYS

    Audi: A4 and A6 (no more sudden acceleration unless you're talking about sales)

    Chrysler: Colt, Summit, Stealth (three of the best cars Chrysler never built)

    Ford: Escort, Mustang, Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis (a Mazda spinoff and rear drive reliability) "
    There you go.

    You have evidence of Jaguar in the top 5 in the world? Not judging by CR or the Lemon Aid reports - and even if - Hypothetically, it were true then that would illustrate my point above that some European cars fair better than the 20 figure now doesn't it?
    It was JD Power's IQS but damned if I can find it. Actually, it illustrates that Jaguar is NOT a Ford as you proclaim, otherwise it would be on the side of a road burning in a ditch, right? Ford improved Jaguar, period.

    % does not mean they own Suzuki...that requires 50.1% And when the Sprint was made what roughly a decade ago. This practice is not new. Swift was out and people were buying them up GM wants a piece of that and comes out witht he Sprint...same exact car but with a GM body...it's a Japanese car designed by Suzuki.
    News flash: Suzuki's 2 latest models, the Verona and Forenza (who names these things?) are rebadged Korean engineered, designed, and built Daewoos. All three are under the GM umbrella. Make no mistake, 25% may not mean you own it but it sure as hell means you pull the strings. Nothing goes on at Suzuki without Rick Wagoner's stamp of approval.

    This is my only complaint with the entire article was what are they talking about when they say American/European/Japanese or Korean Mexican for that matter. Is it company ownership? Is it who designed it? Is it where the parts came from? Is it where it was physically BUILT? If the latter than Honda Civic is an American Car...Jag is European...if it's ownership the Honda is Japanese and Jag is American. You can't have it both ways and if you want it both ways you better tell the reader...in either case it was not done in that article. It's like me saying that Audio Note is 50% better than YBA. Great...how so? Which products? Statistics ALWAYS need contexts that are useful.
    The US government dictates that for an automobile to be classified as "Made in the USA" it must contain at least 70% domestic content. The Honda Accord is "made in America." The Chrysler Crossfire is actually assembled (not 'made') in America but is a rebodied previous gen. M/B SLK, w/ the M/B engine, tranny, electrics, and even the same dash board.

    Then in 2003 14 years after the A21a update in 1989 Stereohile says ohh yes this was the best amp in it's class. How the hell can they MISS the longest running amplifier in history - the best one it's class to boot - and then when they FINALLY review it they don't even give it a full review.
    This is why Stereophile is a joke. How can one person or even a group of "professional reviewers" proclaim ANY one item as "best in class" in a field as subjective as audio? Lunacy. Do they have my ears, my preferences, my speakers, my room, etc.? Best in class? Whatever...

  6. #56
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by JSE
    Actually Ford and Firestone are both at fault on this one. The Firestone tires were defective and had problems regardless of what vehicle they were on. The ocurrence rate was higher with the Ford Explorer due to the vehicle's design defect. Just about every SUV or high center of gravity vehicle with the defective Firestone tires on them had the same issues just not at the same rate. Both companies are being sued and both are paying out the wazoo right now.

    I work for a very large auto insurance company and both Ford and Firestone are paying back my company and others for our payments toward these accidents.

    Fact is, Fireston's tire's were defective and fell apart regardless of what air pressure they were run at. Would a tire low on pressure be more prone to fail, yes, but Ford's recc. to run the tires at lower pressures in reality had nothing to do with it. 99.99999% of people out there look at the side of their tire for the recc. tire pressure. However, that point is being raised and use against Ford with success.
    JSE
    I wasn't taking Firestone off the hook. It sounds to me that both put out out a faulty product and when you combine two together you get a disaster. Both are being sued you are correct because both are likely equally responsible or partially responsible. Plus, many companies will rather pay-off because it saves them the battle.

    As a snide aside:
    It's hard to belive Firestone would FORGET how to deign a SAFE tire after 95 years of successful tires. I'd say the same for for Ford but then I can't point to proof they've ever known how to build SAFE cars. -- Yes this is a Jab ---joke people

  7. #57
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by topspeed
    Check your post on 3/30 "GOOD BUYS

    Audi: A4 and A6 (no more sudden acceleration unless you're talking about sales)

    Chrysler: Colt, Summit, Stealth (three of the best cars Chrysler never built)

    Ford: Escort, Mustang, Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis (a Mazda spinoff and rear drive reliability) "
    There you go.

    This is why Stereophile is a joke. How can one person or even a group of "professional reviewers" proclaim ANY one item as "best in class" in a field as subjective as audio? Lunacy. Do they have my ears, my preferences, my speakers, my room, etc.? Best in class? Whatever...
    The quotes under Good Buys are all from Lemon-Aid not me just so you know - including what was in brackets. I know the escort in 1992 or so had some sort of Mazda link because the car itself was a vast improvement over to prior models (I had the 1990 escort which was just about as bad as my Grand Am) - By 100,000Km I only had the transmission to replace and the driver's seat(it broke - so you had to sit kinda side-ways), wheels, bearings, front end, head gasket, window roller(WTF), air conditioner. It was only after being beat up a hill by my friend's Hyundai Pony that really was the kicker to sell. Until the Honda, I thought all those repairs were just the cost of owning a vehicle so get used to it. The Japanese prove time and again in any stat anyone here wants to useor imply that they are better than EVERYONE else on an overall average of fewer defects fewer Break-Downs(which I call "falling apart" but some are too stupid to imply the difference you have to spell it out like they're 4 years old). That don't mean some guys Acura won't be an equal pile of crap or that you won't get half a million trouble free miles out of a Chevy Cavelier. On average however you're more LIKELY to have more success with the Acura or Toyota than any American Car.

    Jag is better OK, I can accept it - of course they couldn't get much worse worse. All cars have improved over the last 20 years - for the bloody money they should bloody well improve no? Well except the Ford Focus and Explorer perhaps. Something tells me that if you look you'll see the same drive train in the New Grand Am as the 1994 version I had which was probably the same as the one a decade earlier. The incompetant trunk lay-out and very cheap plastic inside is similar...lots more cheap plastic body must be worth that extra 5k - I'll look at 2004 rating of the Grand Am in 2007 and see if they've improved. Reliability ratings unfortunately have a lag-time in order to assess anything usefull. So instead of the plastic falling off(ie; having problems via defect) right off the plant they've managed to ensure that less of them fall off(ie are a defect) off the line. Interestingly, they can't catch it off the line at 25,000km of use.

  8. #58
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    26
    Denon AVR1804 is the best for music and HT, nice receiver

  9. #59
    Rich Tubey Goodness
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    28
    I'd probably go with the Yamaha only because the Denon is maybe a touch better than the Marantz and that doesn't have even 1/2 the build quality of my '76 Marantz 2220B. I'd be willing to bet that NONE of them would hold up more than 20 minutes at half power on a serious bench test before blowing up.

  10. #60
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    Different creatures.

    I can't think of ANY receiver that matches the build quality of a well constructed 30 year old receiver. You really don't want to compare a thirty year old stereo receiver to today's AV stuff.

    I have both a Marantz 2270 (bought new in '72) and a Denon 2802 (bought new last March) and, so far no complaints about either.

    Granted, the 2270 has been realigned twice and the power switch replaced once but that's about to be expected. Still chuggin' along on a pretty much daily basis.

    The 2802 has been bringing smiles to all who have experienced it, in either two channel music mode or full blown 5.1 (don't have room for 6.1) mode. Now, will it last 30 years? Who knows? But I do know tghe technology has changed drastically, both in features and functionality, since the 2270 was built.


    In any case, wacha doin' talkin' about AV systems? I thought this thread was about cars?

  11. #61
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    I can't think of ANY receiver that matches the build quality of a well constructed 30 year old receiver. You really don't want to compare a thirty year old stereo receiver to today's AV stuff.

    I have both a Marantz 2270 (bought new in '72) and a Denon 2802 (bought new last March) and, so far no complaints about either.

    Granted, the 2270 has been realigned twice and the power switch replaced once but that's about to be expected. Still chuggin' along on a pretty much daily basis.

    The 2802 has been bringing smiles to all who have experienced it, in either two channel music mode or full blown 5.1 (don't have room for 6.1) mode. Now, will it last 30 years? Who knows? But I do know tghe technology has changed drastically, both in features and functionality, since the 2270 was built.


    In any case, wacha doin' talkin' about AV systems? I thought this thread was about cars?
    Veering even further off topic (or maybe back on topic), how easy is it to find parts for your 2270? I'm about to start refurbing my parents' old Marantz 2275 (from 1976) and have no idea on how much it will cost or whether the parts are even available. I've heard conflicting things about how easy it is to fix up vintage Marantzes. On that 2275, some of the indicator bulbs have gone out, and some of the switches periodically short out. I'm not sure if some simple cleaning will do the trick, or if replacement's in order.

    On whether or not it's as well built as today's receivers, I'm not sure if you can really compare given that you had so many manual switches and controls on those vintage receivers whose functions are now consolidated into a single processor board. And a lot of those older switches are prone to shorting out. Whether or not the digital circuitry of today will last longer than those older analog controls, we'll see. Digital circuits just seem to fail without warning, while some analog components audibly age before failing. My parents' Marantz delivers 75 watts into only two channels, yet it weighs 10 lbs. more than my Yamaha AV receiver and it has a higher power consumption. Another thing with those older receivers is that the tuner components (with the manual dial, all those analog tuning gauges, and the analog circuitry) alone could weigh quite a bit. When the tuner on my friends' old Sansui receiver was shorting out and causing interference with the other components, he just ripped the tuner and all the supporting components out, like the dials and indicators. It opened up a LOT of room inside that receiver and those parts must have weighed at least 2-3 lbs. Nowadays, the tuner circuitry's about the size of a matchbook.

  12. #62
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    EVERYONE else on an overall average of fewer defects fewer Break-Downs(which I call "falling apart" but some are too stupid to imply the difference you have to spell it out like they're 4 years old).
    And others are too self-righteous to differentiate between fact and exaggeration.

  13. #63
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717

    It ain't cheap!

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Veering even further off topic (or maybe back on topic), how easy is it to find parts for your 2270? I'm about to start refurbing my parents' old Marantz 2275 (from 1976) and have no idea on how much it will cost or whether the parts are even available. I've heard conflicting things about how easy it is to fix up vintage Marantzes. On that 2275, some of the indicator bulbs have gone out, and some of the switches periodically short out. I'm not sure if some simple cleaning will do the trick, or if replacement's in order.
    Each bulb is $4 bucks and you can clean the switches until you get to the point that I was at and have them rebuilt. After a thorough tune up, re-biasing or something of the amps, and a serious $120 bill, I am essentially enjoying an "as-new" 2230. There's a guy on e-bay that specializes in rebuilding vintage Marantz receivers so before you spend like I did, it may not be a bad idea to check 'em out, sentimental value notwithstanding. I will say that it is absolutely worth the money as these Marantz receivers are so amazingly powerful, clean, and very hip/retro looking in their brushed steel and cool blue glow. I can't get much past half with the VR1's before it's pretty well uncomfortable (I'll have to pull out the spl meter to see how loud that is ), and that's only 30 watts peak!

    Have fun Wooch!

  14. #64
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Veering even further off topic (or maybe back on topic), how easy is it to find parts for your 2270? I'm about to start refurbing my parents' old Marantz 2275 (from 1976) and have no idea on how much it will cost or whether the parts are even available. I've heard conflicting things about how easy it is to fix up vintage Marantzes. On that 2275, some of the indicator bulbs have gone out, and some of the switches periodically short out. I'm not sure if some simple cleaning will do the trick, or if replacement's in order.

    On whether or not it's as well built as today's receivers, I'm not sure if you can really compare given that you had so many manual switches and controls on those vintage receivers whose functions are now consolidated into a single processor board. And a lot of those older switches are prone to shorting out. Whether or not the digital circuitry of today will last longer than those older analog controls, we'll see. Digital circuits just seem to fail without warning, while some analog components audibly age before failing. My parents' Marantz delivers 75 watts into only two channels, yet it weighs 10 lbs. more than my Yamaha AV receiver and it has a higher power consumption. Another thing with those older receivers is that the tuner components (with the manual dial, all those analog tuning gauges, and the analog circuitry) alone could weigh quite a bit. When the tuner on my friends' old Sansui receiver was shorting out and causing interference with the other components, he just ripped the tuner and all the supporting components out, like the dials and indicators. It opened up a LOT of room inside that receiver and those parts must have weighed at least 2-3 lbs. Nowadays, the tuner circuitry's about the size of a matchbook.
    Up until a year ago I had a tech do almost all my work for me. He did warranty work for me and other companies for the major brands (Marantz, Scott, Fisher, H/K, etc...) in the 60's when I sold this stuff. Unfortuantely he was forced to retire this year and now I'm in pretty much the same boat you are.

    The best place for this info (both sources and technique) is on the vintage page of http://www.audiokarma.org. Shain is the resident Marantz guru.

    Yeah, the physical components are prone to wear but the fact that they lasted this long says a lot about 'em. I still say t hat the tuners in these old boat anchors are far, far superior to practically anything sold today. But, when you figure in ther cost back then and factor in inflation, they would cost a heckuva lot more in today's dollars.

  15. #65
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Back to Denon, Yammie and Marantz.

    There is no proof beyond anecdotes that any are better than the others and you'll get support for all of them and people will have breakdowns from all of them eventually. Marantz in Canada has the best warranty of the three. The entry model is the cheapest and has more upgradablilty, is the heaviest has a physically bigger power supply.

    And don't forget Onkyo. Most all like priced receivers sound pretty much the same - so features, warranty and price are what I'd be looking at in the entry level region.

    These reviews are older but the GUTS as in power supplies/preamp build quality etc will give you a general idea of sound. Hi - Fi choice uses level matched blind panel listening sessions and have even had the designers of componants in to listen (kind of funny that they don't always pick their own gear as best). The mag is not the same as Home Cinema Choice - but Hi-fi choice in not available in my bookstore anymore - costs too much to import. The sight is going to want to give up to date reviews and cut their magazine sales.

    Basically if it gets 3 it might be considered good 4-5 well I like loits of stuff that gets 4 over stuff they give 5 - after all it's a panel and one panel member may love something but is out voted...you might have been that one member - so 4-5 are certainly worth your attention...Most of the time they're right on what they give 3.

    There are two pages. http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_l...category=MULTI

  16. #66
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by topspeed
    Each bulb is $4 bucks and you can clean the switches until you get to the point that I was at and have them rebuilt. After a thorough tune up, re-biasing or something of the amps, and a serious $120 bill, I am essentially enjoying an "as-new" 2230. There's a guy on e-bay that specializes in rebuilding vintage Marantz receivers so before you spend like I did, it may not be a bad idea to check 'em out, sentimental value notwithstanding. I will say that it is absolutely worth the money as these Marantz receivers are so amazingly powerful, clean, and very hip/retro looking in their brushed steel and cool blue glow. I can't get much past half with the VR1's before it's pretty well uncomfortable (I'll have to pull out the spl meter to see how loud that is ), and that's only 30 watts peak!

    Have fun Wooch!
    $120 is not a bad deal for restoring one of those things to near-new condition. I might have to look into that. There was a shop near my office that specialized in vintage audio restorations, but the owner retired a couple of years ago. I guess I'll need to hunt around.

    Everything indeed does go through cycles. When my parents fired up that receiver for the first time, it was by far the most modern looking thing in our living room (at that time it was sitting on top of an old RCA console TV). We didn't even have components, it was just FM radio. Then when we added other components and the trend went decidedly towards black components, suddenly that Marantz looked dated. Now, it all looks cool again (and all the better because my parents never removed that 70s-look plywood paneling in their living room). Too bad my parents got rid of all those harvest gold and avocado colored appliances.

  17. #67
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    Up until a year ago I had a tech do almost all my work for me. He did warranty work for me and other companies for the major brands (Marantz, Scott, Fisher, H/K, etc...) in the 60's when I sold this stuff. Unfortuantely he was forced to retire this year and now I'm in pretty much the same boat you are.

    The best place for this info (both sources and technique) is on the vintage page of http://www.audiokarma.org. Shain is the resident Marantz guru.

    Yeah, the physical components are prone to wear but the fact that they lasted this long says a lot about 'em. I still say t hat the tuners in these old boat anchors are far, far superior to practically anything sold today. But, when you figure in ther cost back then and factor in inflation, they would cost a heckuva lot more in today's dollars.
    Thanx for the link, I'll check it out.

    Actually, I never thought that the switches on the Marantzes were all that durable. Started getting static on the volume control within the first five years, and one of the tape monitors began shorting out before that. Others switches have followed suit.

    Can't deny though the sound quality on those units is superb, and aside from those switches, the overall build quality is very rugged. And the tuners on those vintage Marantzes are indeed better than anything I've used since then. The 2275 that my parents bought listed for $600 in 1976 (bought on closeout for about $350). Taking inflation into account, that would be nearly $2,000 today!

  18. #68
    Rich Tubey Goodness
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Veering even further off topic (or maybe back on topic), how easy is it to find parts for your 2270? I'm about to start refurbing my parents' old Marantz 2275 (from 1976) and have no idea on how much it will cost or whether the parts are even available. I've heard conflicting things about how easy it is to fix up vintage Marantzes. On that 2275, some of the indicator bulbs have gone out, and some of the switches periodically short out. I'm not sure if some simple cleaning will do the trick, or if replacement's in order.

    On whether or not it's as well built as today's receivers, I'm not sure if you can really compare given that you had so many manual switches and controls on those vintage receivers whose functions are now consolidated into a single processor board. And a lot of those older switches are prone to shorting out. Whether or not the digital circuitry of today will last longer than those older analog controls, we'll see. Digital circuits just seem to fail without warning, while some analog components audibly age before failing. My parents' Marantz delivers 75 watts into only two channels, yet it weighs 10 lbs. more than my Yamaha AV receiver and it has a higher power consumption. Another thing with those older receivers is that the tuner components (with the manual dial, all those analog tuning gauges, and the analog circuitry) alone could weigh quite a bit. When the tuner on my friends' old Sansui receiver was shorting out and causing interference with the other components, he just ripped the tuner and all the supporting components out, like the dials and indicators. It opened up a LOT of room inside that receiver and those parts must have weighed at least 2-3 lbs. Nowadays, the tuner circuitry's about the size of a matchbook.
    On refurbing your 2275 you may be able to find out some info here. As I know it you'll have to clean the pots. Be careful what you use to clean them because certain spray cleaners will destroy the plastic inside and the only way to replace them is to find a junker (and those aren't easy to find). The bulbs, albeit a bit pricey, are easy to find.

    Technology has come along way but unfortunately a good portion of that tech research has gone into building everything cheaper and cheaper. Using smaller curcuit boards, processors, cheaper pots, etc. The big problem with such consolidation is that if something shorts out you end up having to replace the board if not the whole unit, whereas with the older gear if something shorted out (switch, pot etc) all you had to do was replace the offending part and you were up and running again (granted if the PC board went you were SOL but that wasn't very common). Case in point. I also have an Onkyo TX V940 100 wpc reciever. It's actually the second one I've had because the first one shorted out the display panel and the whole unit had to be replaced under warranty.
    This past weekend I went into the repair shop to measure the output of my receivers (class project for adult ed). We hooked up the Onkyo first. At about 50% power another cutomer came in and Dennis had to leave the bench for less than 5 minutes, but told me to leave my hand on top of the unit. Let me tell you she got hot fast and started to smell real funky. He came back and said "A Sony, Pioneer or (new) Marantz would have blown by now." We managed to get 91 watts out of the Onkyo before the onset of distortion with a THD a .9%. We then rigged up the Marantz 2220B and pulled out a meager 18 watts (which isn't that bad considering its age and that the filter caps and carbon resistors need changing) without breaking into a sweat. Dennis then showed me an early '70's 30 watt receiver that he in fact helped build (I didn't get the brand but he was able to name off the initials listed on the inspection slip). Overbuilt? Two heatsinks, huge caps, formidable transformer and heavy as lead. No modern reciever I have seen diplays such quality. Also remember when the feds put up the rules for measuring receivers and the like in '74, they were to be measured rms PER HOUR (unfortunately nobody seems to measure by that standard anymore). The Onkyo wouldn't have lasted 15 minutes under those conditions.
    A good portion of the gear made in the 60's and 70's was overbuilt and made to last a long time. The gear coming out now sadly displays the throw away/Wal-Mart society we have become. The general public wants the very most for the very least and if something goes wrong after a couple years, throw it away and get another one just like it.
    What would be nice to see is a marriage of modern tech to built like a tank quality but until that day happens (don't hold your breath), I'll just stick with old faithful or just go bucks up component.

  19. #69
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    RMS per hour?

    I think what you're referring to is that the units under test had to be run at, or "preconditioned", for 1/3 (or 1/2, dunno) their ratd power for one hour before actual testing began. This gave somewhat of an assurance that they would not "blow up" instantaneously when called upon to deliver their rated power, ala PMPO Type ratings.

  20. #70
    Rich Tubey Goodness
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    28
    I just looked it up
    I stand humbly corrected
    (c) The amplifier shall be
    preconditioned by simultaneously operating
    all channels at one-eighth of
    rated power output for one hour using
    a sinusoidal wave at a frequency of
    1,000 Hz; provided, however, that for amplifiers
    utilized as a component in a
    self-powered subwoofer system, the sinusoidal
    wave used as a preconditioning
    signal may be any frequency
    within the amplifierís intended operating
    bandwidth that will allow the
    amplifier to be driven to one-eighth of
    rated power for one hour

    (e) Rated power shall be obtainable
    at all frequencies within the rated
    power band without exceeding the
    rated maximum percentage of total
    harmonic distortion after input signals
    at said frequencies have been continuously
    applied at full rated power for
    not less than five (5) minutes at the
    amplifierís auxiliary input, or if not
    provided, at the phono input

  21. #71
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    167

    Talking

    OKAY! So I am still undecided over which cae should I finally buy! I will then have some audio related questios, maybe!

  22. #72
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3
    Hip Hip Hooray. Woodman has got it right. My first A/V DTS Reciever was a Pioneer. Then I decided I wanted 5.1 Channel RCA outputs so I could run my fronts through my stereo system. Ergo sell the Pioneer & buy the Yamaha RX-V800. To me Yamaha is head & shoulders above mid fi names like Sony Pioneer Marantz Denon Onkyo. When you get your hands on a Yamaha you will "feel" the difference. These things are built like tanks. Don't wuss out. Buy a RX-V2400 at minimum. Plus you get a remote included which will run all your components. I am liking the Marantz 8400 DVD player.

  23. #73
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3
    Agree with woodman above. Yamaha smokes the competition - Sony Marantz Denon Onkyo & Pioneer. Check out the RX-V2400 rated at around 100 watts x 6.

  24. #74
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    148

    I'm not that old

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    $120 is not a bad deal for restoring one of those things to near-new condition. I might have to look into that. There was a shop near my office that specialized in vintage audio restorations, but the owner retired a couple of years ago. I guess I'll need to hunt around.

    Everything indeed does go through cycles. When my parents fired up that receiver for the first time, it was by far the most modern looking thing in our living room (at that time it was sitting on top of an old RCA console TV). We didn't even have components, it was just FM radio. Then when we added other components and the trend went decidedly towards black components, suddenly that Marantz looked dated. Now, it all looks cool again (and all the better because my parents never removed that 70s-look plywood paneling in their living room). Too bad my parents got rid of all those harvest gold and avocado colored appliances.
    well not to state my age, but my wife's washer and dryer are harvest gold. I bought them in the 70's Whirlpool, still working great today !
    The washer has had the motor replaced once, and a new belt on the dryer once ........... wish I could say the same about some old cars that I had.

    I'm also glad to say, those are they only hints of the 70's equipment that are still around to be seen in my house ....... I couldn't afford AV equipment back then :-)

  25. #75
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1

    computer Quark Express 6.0 for $69.95


Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. H/K or Denon
    By TomStanoch in forum General Audio
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-04-2004, 03:24 PM
  2. Marantz problem I have?
    By John1974 in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-21-2003, 02:33 PM
  3. Bypassing the Receiver...Help!
    By rkarkada in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-19-2003, 08:05 AM
  4. British speakers and Yamaha
    By littleb in forum Speakers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-18-2003, 10:48 PM
  5. HDTV Receiver Installation
    By SHD in forum Digital Domain & Computer Audio
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-15-2003, 04:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •