Deciding Between the Marantz Model 30 and McIntosh MA252

Thanks for your responses.

To clarify, I’m looking for the more analytical sound without being extremely harsh (@ @corelli )

@oddiofyl can you please explain the differences, it would help me a lot.

@deadhead1000 i have the Triangle Gaia Ez towers, currently driving them with a Yamaha RN 402 @mesch 

No experience with the Marantz.   By all accounts ts it a nice unit.   I have used the McIntosh.   I like it , some don't like the new form factor.   I though it sounded good,  I have said before that as would buy one for a second room.   I like it.  The problem with buying based with someone's recommendation is that you are getting what they like, not necessarily what you like.  It IS a McIntosh so down the road if you want to sell you will get most of your investment back.  Not the case with the Marantz,   

I have not heard the McIntosh unit but I am well familiar with Marantz.  While the Marantz does not lack in detail to my ear, I would hesitate to call it analytical.  Here is a quote form Paul Seydor in his review of the Ruby:

"Once asked what sonic qualities his perfect component would have, Ishiwata replied, “It would have a rich and warm midband for voices and an amazing three-dimensional soundstage.” I’d say he’s realized that goal. There is some of the warmth, richness, and dimensionality traditionally associated with tubes together with the precision, definition, transient attack, bottom-end extension, and impact for which solid-state is prized. If not echt neutral, it’s surely a sound that anyone who loves music would enjoy: natural, smooth, refined, and, well, that word again, beautiful. This beauty extends downward throughout the whole bottom end, which is solid, weighty, and grounded yet also capable of quite excellent definition, clarity, and real muscle when needed. By contrast the top end is easy on the ears: “crisp” and “extended” might not be the first words that spring to mind upon initial listen, but neither would “soft,” “muted,” “dark,” or “sloping.” On the contrary, there’s high resolution and detail on offer here, yet without its being highlighted, etched, or edgy, and the ambience and atmosphere of venues are reproduced very capably.  Despite its nice sense of body, it’s also rhythmically agile so that those who place high priorities on timing and the speed with which their toes get to tapping will find next to nothing to complain about, while the vitality with which these components reproduce music from all sources guarantees high engagement and involvement."

I completely agree. 

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

@oddiofyl I like the form factor of the Macintosh, and it would be my first time with tubes, making me a little nervous.

@corelli, that's a great review. I think it will also suit my needs! 

Just an opinion as I have owned McIntosh and Marantz equipment, but I am not familiar with your speakers. If your speakers are more a more "forward" or "bright", i.e. the speakers tend toward the highs rather then the lows, the McIntosh would be a good choice. Otherwise the Marantz. Both are good units. Yes, McIntosh holds it value longer, but I would not worry about the resale value unless you like to change your stuff out every year or two.