Marantz vs. Pioneer Receivers

Memory lane. Back in the early '70 in Germany seened everyone in the barracks had a system in their room. I had a Pioneer SX 1090 (I think that was the model), anyway it was a big boy. Beautiful wooden cabinet. Cool tone knob with a graphic display. Loved it, hooked up to an Akai reel to reel, Gerrard TT, and Bose 501s. Had a complete wall empty except the Bose. Others had those sexy Marantz receivers or the separate components. Seems that those were a plush gold. Which sounded better, it was always constant argument but fun. I sold the system when I got discharged but in the late 80's bought the quadraphonic sister model to that pioneer along with two pioneer and two sanui speakers, both with the heavy wood cabinets and wooden grills. Wife hated it but hey. The receiver lasted about ten years sounded great although the pot would need occational cleaning tp rid the static. The stuff I replaced it with was junk, shoulda paid the $100 to fix it.

Marantz are probebly the better built and sounding brand. However if you really want good quality sound reproduction go with either Denon or Onkyo.

the best classic receivers for audio thrills and investment are mac, tandberg, revox

Marantz is much more musical from my past experiences.Pioneer
is somewhat more dry and analytical.I use to own a Marantz
Quad 4400 Receiver,if you can find one of these snap one up.
The FM Tuner with scope sounds incredible.The receiver can be strapped in 2 channel mode at 125 watts RMS.It also has several outputs.A very fine receiver indeed.

I own Marantz imp 6 and imp 7 speakers and a 6200 turntable,
and have a pioneer sx-1080 and a sansui 8080. the sansui sounds better direct and the pioneer with an mxr eq sounds great. I would have gone with a Marantz if the stereo shop would of sold those in 1978. I also had a sansui seven. I bought new in 1974 and it also sounded better than a pioneer.