Considering Marantz (without Ken Ishiwata)

[Wil]

Amusing observation, I’m reminded that last year PM6007 lost Product of the Year honours to Cambridge Audio CXA81 (tested at double the cost of the Marantz) https://www.whathifi.com/awards/best-stereo-amplifiers-2020

Sociologically then, regarding amplifiers, this year is only 50% to that of 2020?

 

[nopiano]

You lost me with that last sentence, I’m afraid!

 

[Wil]

Sociology (in-joke)…

You lost me with that last sentence, I’m afraid!

Raw data, they both contested in both years:
Best stereo amplifiers 2020 [& 2019]
Product of the year [2019-2020]
Cambridge Audio CXA81 review
What Hi-Fi? Awards [2019, 2020 &] 2021 winner. Sets a new baseline for integrated amps at this price
Tested at £999 / $1299


Best stereo amplifiers 2021
Product of the year
Marantz PM6007 review
What Hi-Fi? Awards [2020 &] 2021 winner. Marantz refines its Award-winning budget amp recipe
Tested at £499 / $599

 

[nopiano]

Sociology (in-joke)…

That’s why I didn’t get it. I’m well aware that the amplifiers are different prices. Quite why the Cambridge is out-pointed this time escapes me, but there seems to be more emphasis on the budget end currently. Good for mass market consumers: less good for audiophiles.

 

[Al ears]

That’s why I didn’t get it. I’m well aware that the amplifiers are different prices. Quite why the Cambridge is out-pointed this time escapes me, but there seems to be more emphasis on the budget end currently. Good for mass market consumers: less good for audiophiles.

Perhaps they need to state Best Amplifier below £1000....., oops, turns out they already do (£800-£1500)
And I too have no idea how the Marantz suddenly pops back in front above the Cambridge this year when nothing has changed in either amp.
Besides I don't happen to agree with them and wouldn't buy either of them.

 

[Wil]

I’ve been somewhat restless about broaching the Relentless… i.e.:

Dan D’Agostino launches flagship three-chassis Relentless Preamplifier for an eye-watering £165,000

Partner with a pair of Relentless Mono amps for over £400K of serious high-end amplification

www.whathifi.com

That’s why I didn’t get it. I’m well aware that the amplifiers are different prices. Quite why the Cambridge is out-pointed this time escapes me, but there seems to be more emphasis on the budget end currently. Good for mass market consumers: less good for audiophiles.

What are the chances of it and its partnering mono amp being reviewed in WHF? We can pretty much expect it in the rival mag.

Then again, if WHF is happy with its direction…

 

[Al ears]

I’ve been somewhat restless about broaching the Relentless… i.e.:

Dan D’Agostino launches flagship three-chassis Relentless Preamplifier for an eye-watering £165,000

Partner with a pair of Relentless Mono amps for over £400K of serious high-end amplification

www.whathifi.com

What are the chances of it and its partnering mono amp being reviewed in WHF? We can pretty much expect it in the rival mag.

Then again, if WHF is happy with its direction…

It's always the same. WHF will only audition what it gets given to audition and it would seem other publications get given stuff that WHF never get their hands on.

Coming to a HiFi+ magazine near you soon....
Having said that a WHF review of the complete £415,000 system might be interesting...

 

[nopiano]

What are the chances of it and its partnering mono amp being reviewed in WHF? We can pretty much expect it in the rival mag.

To be fair, if I were editing WHF this wouldn’t be worth the effort. But they have reviewed Dan’s integrated amp. So why they didn’t mention that and the Copland and various other tasty models in the Year edition I’m less sure.

 

[manicm]

That’s why I didn’t get it. I’m well aware that the amplifiers are different prices. Quite why the Cambridge is out-pointed this time escapes me, but there seems to be more emphasis on the budget end currently. Good for mass market consumers: less good for audiophiles.

The Cambridge wasn't 'out-pointed'. WHF thinks the 6007 sounds significantly better than the 6006 to warrant an award that also gives points to value for money. So I see no dichotomy there.

Just remember the CXA81 costs twice the price, and even the CXA61 costs over 200 quid more.

So I have no problem with WHF's award.

 

[nopiano]

The Cambridge wasn't 'out-pointed'. WHF thinks the 6007 sounds significantly better than the 6006 to warrant an award that also gives points to value for money. So I see no dichotomy there.

Just remember the CXA81 costs twice the price, and even the CXA61 costs over 200 quid more.

So I have no problem with WHF's award.

But surely the point is the 6007 licked the 6006 last year too. But they rated the double-cost Cambridge ahead for their amp of the year in 2020. This year, they’ve revised their decision despite both amps remaining unchanged.

 

[Wil]

The crux is the significance, or not, of being (supreme) Product of the Year…

The Cambridge wasn't 'out-pointed'. WHF thinks the 6007 sounds significantly better than the 6006 to warrant an award that also gives points to value for money. So I see no dichotomy there.

Just remember the CXA81 costs twice the price, and even the CXA61 costs over 200 quid more.

So I have no problem with WHF's award.

Timing, I said, in other words, the same thing as @nopiano

 

[Wil]

It's always the same. WHF will only audition what it gets given to audition and it would seem other publications get given stuff that WHF never get their hands on.

Coming to a HiFi+ magazine near you soon....
Having said that a WHF review of the complete £415,000 system might be interesting...

With HF+ being mentioned, I may as well name the review I had read of the-mono-amp. It's Verdict:
"I am typically wary of 'great expectations' because they may just as easily resolve into dismay. Not so here, for the anticipation and auto-suggestion planted into the minds of eager audiophiles the world over by the astonishing scale and price of these amplifiers is realised in every facet of their performance. Just as their sound is forever etched in my memory, their 11kW will be permanently scorched into the record books!"

To be fair, if I were editing WHF this wouldn’t be worth the effort. But they have reviewed Dan’s integrated amp. So why they didn’t mention that and the Copland and various other tasty models in the Year edition I’m less sure.

And tying it back to KI, he just didn’t go (engineering) the cost-no-object route.

 

[nopiano]

And tying it back to KI, he just didn’t go (engineering) the cost-no-object route.

Yes, almost forgot the topic. What KI did was much harder, making modest kit great.

 

[Wil]

Yes, almost forgot the topic. What KI did was much harder, making modest kit great.

Yet, quoting you:

Good for mass market consumers: less good for audiophiles.

High fidelity fanatics (audiophiles) lost out on KI’s true engineering possibilities?

I’m thinking of gifting my brother-in-law my PM7001 KI, it retailed at £499 in 2008. And, today, £499 is the price for a PM6007. Which would you bet is better for playback?

 

[Al ears]

Yet, quoting you:

High fidelity fanatics (audiophiles) lost out on KI’s true engineering possibilities?

I’m thinking of gifting my brother-in-law my PM7001 KI, it retailed at £499 in 2008. And, today, £499 is the price for a PM6007. Which would you bet is better for playback?

Um, let me guess...

 

[Wil]

Um, let me guess...

I’m confident there's a Thread on Features Vs. True Function/Simplicity (for want of a better word). I can foresee the probable arguments of PM6007 having Subwoofer Out & Digital Audio In Vs. PM7001 KI having Pre Out & Main In.

 

[Al ears]

I’m confident there's a Thread on Features Vs. True Function/Simplicity (for want of a better word). I can foresee the probable arguments of PM6007 having Subwoofer Out & Digital Audio In Vs. PM7001 KI having Pre Out & Main In.

Obviously each amplifier was developed to suit the requirements of the purchaser of that particular time.

 

[nopiano]

High fidelity fanatics (audiophiles) lost out on KI’s true engineering possibilities?

Well, I thought he had a hand in the SE models too, like my CD player, didn’t he? But he wasn’t super high end as that wasn’t the target audience. (My reference to mass market was made in the context of WHF, but obviously that includes Marantz’s volume sales too.)

 

[Wil]

Obviously each amplifier was developed to suit the requirements of the purchaser of that particular time.

Thus, precisely why 2021’s Product of the Year is… Yet, some (not necessarily saying me) purists would contend stereo amplifiers needn’t (or mustn’t) include/incorporate a Source feature.

I recall KI was a(n animated) purist at heart:

 

[Al ears]

Thus, precisely why 2021’s Product of the Year is… Yet, some (not necessarily saying me) purists would contend stereo amplifiers needn’t (or mustn’t) include/incorporate a Source feature.

I recall KI was a(n animated) purist at heart:

Quite so, although you could argue that, on its own, a DAC is not a source feature and neither is a phono preamp.

 

[Wil]

Quite so, although you could argue that, on its own, a DAC is not a source feature and neither is a phono preamp.

I'll share a detail of what I've bought, 2 original MusicLink series Pre-amps, the SC-22, then the-improved SC-23. They both don't have a Phono stage, frontal image:

Their SC-7S1 (and later S2) which I wanted don't have a Phono stage either.

KI, however, did state he believes it's acceptable for Disc player to have a DAC Input feature when it can be "precisely integrated":

 

[Wil]

I was distracted, the issue about putting a DAC Input feature into an Integrated Amp is (the complicating factor of) solving the-Digital-interference…

My brother-in-law owns a ND8006, my thinking is Eric will be fine using my PM7001 KI because if/when comparing to the PM6007… its DAC Input feature will be useless (lower grade) to him.

 

[Al ears]

I'll share a detail of what I've bought, 2 original MusicLink series Pre-amps, the SC-22, then the-improved SC-23. They both don't have a Phono stage, frontal image:

Their SC-7S1 (and later S2) which I wanted don't have a Phono stage either.

KI, however, did state he believes it's acceptable for Disc player to have a DAC Input feature when it can be "precisely integrated":

Odd. One can only assume that they don't have phono stages is the fact that a) Marantz don't do turntables or b) the haven't figured out how to shield them inside the box because of 'complicating factors '.
Actually I jest because I know they didn't have phono preamps because Marantz wanted you to buy the matching PH22

 

[Wil]

I gifted my SC-22 & matching PH-22 away to a friend. It'll take too much effort to tell the rationale fully. I simply don’t sell my Hi-Fi, I give it (what I can part with) away to family and friends. Monetarily, something like ‘strangers are disrespectful in wanting to pay as little as possible, and to loved ones—be generous, let-it-go.’

Odd. One can only assume that they don't have phono stages is the fact that a) Marantz don't do turntables or b) the haven't figured out how to shield them inside the box because of 'complicating factors '.
Actually I jest because I know they didn't have phono preamps because Marantz wanted you to buy the matching PH22

 

[Wil]

I often think how the Phono stage of the PM-KI Ruby is wasted on me. Because I won't countenance myself getting-into-vinyl. But, it-is-what-it-is, I wanted and bought the product, 2 of them in fact—to do floating-control bi-amp (one amp for mono L, the other for mono R). But, for the moment, I've stopped myself getting the 3rd.