Still is, but as ASR is Google-Crawler transparent, this might change in the futureGermany used to be the European capital of high-end audio and maybe still is?
Still is, but as ASR is Google-Crawler transparent, this might change in the futureGermany used to be the European capital of high-end audio and maybe still is?
That's an original Marantz unit, not this Purifi garbage disguised as Marantz.
I will take the Purifi amplifiers thank you very muchIt doesn't weigh 90lbs.
I can barely lift my Monolith-7X at 93lbs.
My Purifi weighs 6lbs. It's a dream come true to move around.
On top of that, I can't distinguish an audio difference switching between Monolith-7X and Purifi after compensating for gain. However, the Monolith 7X will get warmer and uses almost 10x more Watts while idle.
We want amps that break your back when you pick them up so they are less likely to be stolen and we need a foot warmer as well as to support the power company with tons of phantom power use. Right?
Indeed - the Purifi name means a lot more to me.I will take the Purifi amplifiers thank you very much
'm not a fan of sticking complete third party, entire amplifier modules in a flagship TOTL product, but it's been done before and is regularly done across practically every industry.
I mean where do you draw the line? An amplifier module, an SMPS power supply, a circuit design or technique, a particular IC or even buying a microcontroller from a rival company to use in your product? How is it different to the CD player era where various manufacturers used complete IC sets from Sony, D/A converters from Burr Brown, Philips, Toshiba? They didn't have the expertise or investment to make their own.
The problem with Marantz is that they have several different legacies, depending on where you look. I doubt the big receivers will ever be back, but I almost see the current HT amps as their successors as feature packed equipment. The tube amps are probably gone now, but the 75th anniversary is coming up and I'm not sure they will want to miss the opportunity of another one off special model for that date if there's also money in it. The high end transistor amps have pretty much been killed off.The SM-1000 I used as an example of a way more powerful Marantz (genuine Marantz US designed) amplifier, with lower advertised distortion than this new Model 10.
I'm not a fan of sticking complete third party, entire amplifier modules in a flagship TOTL product, but it's been done before and is regularly done across practically every industry.
I mean where do you draw the line? An amplifier module, an SMPS power supply, a circuit design or technique, a particular IC or even buying a microcontroller from a rival company to use in your product? How is it different to the CD player era where various manufacturers used complete IC sets from Sony, D/A converters from Burr Brown, Philips, Toshiba? They didn't have the expertise or investment to make their own.
But I agree with you also in some ways. Marantz has again outsourced the very thing they were famous for- their amplification, and that does nothing for their legacy going forward.
It's likely the Purifi modules in this case are held back by the preamp section, and the specs may turn out to be conservative. The SM-1000 is a power amp, of course. We do need to compare like with like across all measurements before jumping to conclusions.Interesting, didn't know there were 40 year old amplifiers that outperform Purifi modules in terms of THD performance. Do you have some measurements for these amplifiers?
Here's one of the problems though. Note the 175W into 1 Ohm. This seems to scare off other parts of Sound United, and indeed people involved in the design. When the latest big B&W was released in Europe, the launch used the previous Class AB reference amp pair instead. That dramatic drop in power was almost certainly the reason why. The Model 10, to justify itself, has to improve on that score.I wonder what the SM-1000 achieved in practice. I believe that the Model 10 will beat the PM-10 and the PM-10 was rated at 200W into 8, which is half of the rated SM-1000, but third party measurements put it north of 600W
View attachment 389307
So the Model 10 may follow that same “280 horsepower” polite Japanese underrating of performance. There may also be the rated power for a given bandwidth…
This is the big one if you want to tie Marantz to audiophoolery. You can find a real life answer to this question by perusing reviews with measurements of two pairings of amp and SACD player, and find out more Marantz history in the process.I have to ask, has all this cladding in copper actually been proved to be beneficial? My Philips CD960/Marantz CD94 based CD player (there was a common donor chassis) has copper boxes covering almost everything, this in addition to the heavy milled top cover and solid bottom equivalent. Had to justify its original £2800 price I suppose
View attachment 389396
Ki put his promotional name to some right clunkers in the past - the low cost PM66Se and the popular but not nice CD63KI Sig expecially come to mind. The amp 'sound' could consistently strip paint at ten paces (heard in many systems and dem rooms in comparison with others - I wonder what the mechanism was which caused this, but of course it was never properly tested by impartial and unbiased reviewers - and the CD player had a measurable jittery mechanism I gather and again, a scrappy 'deeeeetailed' kind of presentation which I remember in comparison with its peers, drastically needed toning down a bit as per the original nice sounding CD63 model - YES I KNOW, all in my subjective past thirty odd years ago, but I did enough dems of the sodding things with a good bit of competition...This is the big one if you want to tie Marantz to audiophoolery. You can find a real life answer to this question by perusing reviews with measurements of two pairings of amp and SACD player, and find out more Marantz history in the process.
The KI-Ruby was the last of the special Ishiwata models. The PM-12 and SA-12 were similar models produced for the Japanese market, basically because the Japanese board would not allow KI models to be sold on the Japanese market at that time. They didn't like the idea of a star performer. They only tolerated him because he solved the problem of what to do with some CD players that didn't sell and they couldn't get rid of him later without damaging their presence in Europe, according to some versions of the story.
So the Ruby pairing have the copper linings and the PM-12SE don't. Read on:
Marantz SA-12SE/PM-12SE SACD Player/Amplifier Lab Report
Lab Report Employing the same Ncore NC500 Class D amp module as the PM-KI Ruby [HFN Jan '19], the PM-12SE shares a very similar but marginally superior performance, offering slightly higher power, lower distortion (0.0008% vs. 0.0015% re. 1kHz/10W) and an improved A-wtd S/N ratio (80.7dB vs...www.hifinews.com
I'm not saying this is the last word, but I don't believe HiFi News test in conditions too dissimilar to an average home in terms of things like wi-fi presence in their lab, and their measuring system is computer based, so some RFI and such to be rejected is present when they test. Maybe in seriously bad conditions the copper might help, but we can put it in the "prove it" basket for certain.
The copper is probably there this time because it was there last time. Like HDAM, the Sound Master tuning, and the "Marantz sound" business, I suspect that the Model 10 is trapped in its past.
and their measuring system is computer based
Maybe in seriously bad conditions the copper might help, but we can put it in the "prove it" basket for certain.
It's likely the Purifi modules in this case are held back by the preamp section, and the specs may turn out to be conservative.
It does depend. At the U.S. launch it was the Model 30 and Classe Delta.Here's one of the problems though. Note the 175W into 1 Ohm. This seems to scare off other parts of Sound United, and indeed people involved in the design. When the latest big B&W was released in Europe, the launch used the previous Class AB reference amp pair instead. That dramatic drop in power was almost certainly the reason why. The Model 10, to justify itself, has to improve on that score.
They might sell to the gaming computer crowd then. That's how you appeal to a younger audience these days?.. oh, that's a different thread.
They might sell to the gaming computer crowd then. That's how you appeal to a younger audience these days?.. oh, that's a different thread.
Glad to see them making more use of the porthole display with this model, although the basic version probably is more in line with the case styling of the PM-10
Testing without the copper shields would be a very interesting test.I have the incredibly rare Marantz CD12LE transport and DA12LE D/A converter here. They are both full of copper shields, multiple transformers and hang-the-expense build quality. Hand selected TDA-1541S1 etc.
Maybe I should test the D/A converter with and without its various copper shields...
View attachment 389590
Marantz CD-12 on thevintageknob.org
vintage Marantz 1987 reference CD player and converter, aka Philips LHH1000www.thevintageknob.org
Review Marantz CD12 LE - Ken Kessel - DutchAudioClassics.nl
DutchAudioClassics.nl - Photos and information of classic Marantz & Philips cd-playerswww.dutchaudioclassics.nl
I would buy 3 Cambridge Audio Edge A for the money, they look even cooler. Connect one and put two next to it for the looks.Simply gorgeous. Astonishing industrial design.
Busbar based connection system is very nice.