NAD 3050 or Marantz Model 30

[jarrod2750]

I have dedicated two channel set up that was powered by a vintage Marantz 2330. I was tired of the maintenance and upkeep and want to go with something relatively new. I’ve narrowed down my choices to two - the Marantz Model 30N or NAD 3050. Based on sonics only, is the $1200 premium of the Marantz worth it?

 

[Zek]

a vintage Marantz 2330

I would never throw away this good receiver...

 

[jarrod2750]

I would never throw away this good receiver...View attachment 352062

I didn’t , I sold it. I wasn’t 100% in love with it. I had a Sansui 9090db and liked that better and got out of it too after some new problems surfaced and I was tired of throwing money at it.

 

[Zek]

I sold it. I wasn’t 100% in love with it

And when you finally realize that the new receiver is not like your beloved Marantz, it will be too late...

 

[jarrod2750]

And when you finally realize that the new receiver is not like your beloved Marantz, it will be too late...

I have a temporary unit in its place a Pioneer VSX D1S while I figure things out, and I really don’t miss the 2330 at all. I don’t regret selling it and moving on. I’m sure it will bring some else great enjoyment. I’m happier with the Pioneer as the temporary unit.

 

[AudiOhm]

What speakers are you using?

Ohms

 

[jarrod2750]

What speakers are you using?

Ohms

Klipsch rb81IIs and a sub

 

[MarkS]

Based on sonics only, is the $1200 premium of the Marantz worth it?

No. But based on sonics only, the Lyngdorf TDAI-1120 is worth it, because it has room correction, and a fully configurable sub crossover, both of which are far more important to good sound than tiny (I would say inaudible) differences in the "sonics" of modern solid-state amps.

 

[jarrod2750]

No. But based on sonics only, the Lyngdorf TDAI-1120 is worth it, because it has room correction, and a fully configurable sub crossover, both of which are far more important to good sound than tiny (I would say inaudible) differences in the "sonics" of modern solid-state amps.

The Dirac functionally of the NAD is why I was considering it

 

[MarkS]

The Dirac functionally of the NAD is why I was considering it

Oh, I did not realize the NAD has Dirac! No reason at all to consider the Marantz then.

 

[pinger]

Receivers, Amps etc should be bought on features, build quality, ergonomics, power requirements etc. Sonically they are all the same. Until someone does a legit double blind showing amps can sound different and be identified by the testers thats my story and Im sticking to it!

 

[AudiOhm]

Receivers, Amps etc should be bought on features, build quality, ergonomics, power requirements etc. Sonically they are all the same. Until someone does a legit double blind showing amps can sound different and be identified by the testers thats my story and Im sticking to it!

Don't forget visual aesthetics...

Ohms

 

[pinger]

Don't forget visual aesthetics...

Ohms

That was part of the etc.

 

[Chrispy]

Can't imagine keeping a Marantz receiver from that era (had a 2270 myself at one point). The idea of basing an integrated amp on "sonics" is weird.