Marantz/B&W scarred me for life!

I-S

I-S

Good Evening.... Infidel
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Messages
4,842
Reaction score
1
Location
In a world of pain
Well, almost.

My old system (CD63, PM66SE, DM602) was so harsh that it could cut things. I got used to it and lived with it for years. However, recently I changed to Rotel CD and amp, and changed my cables, and the system doesn't suffer the same affliction anymore.

However, A couple of weeks ago I was in birmingham at the symphony hall. One of the pieces was a rendition of tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto, with a very talented young Estonian woman playing the solos on the Stradivarius "Huggins" violin. As the piece soared, I gritted my teeth for the sheer harshness of the top note that I'd got so used to with the marantz kit.

Thankfully it never came. What did come was the sweetest sound you've ever heard... And one that I don't believe ANY hifi anywhere can or will match.

I was surprised by my readiness for the harshness though, and realised that I can place the blame for this squarely at my old system's door. That's not what hifi is for!
 
You have my sympathy. I have suffered at the hands of two Marantz CD players. A CD50SE (mine) and a CD63SE (an ex's). Truly ghastly. Thankfully I have now discovered Arcam and no longer need to wince and turn the volume down as I once did.

Chris
 
Originally posted by Robbo
I had one of those (in fact I still do in the loft).
Click to expand...
Best place for it :lol:

It was a rather unforgiving player for rock music. I used to put on U2 and all the house spiders could be seen marching to the kitchen :eek: Talk about sonic buzzsaw!

Chris
 
I uused to use it with a harman kardon 6100 integrated and mission 762s. I built this system out of 5 star what hifi reviews. that was back in the days when I though what the mags said was gospel:rolleyes:

We all live and learn!

TBH, it wasnt a bad system. Though I imagine if it were partnered with the B+Ws it would be would be horrible as I think the metal dome tweeter used in the cheaper B&Ws was truly nasty.

Robbo
 
yeh...wouldn't put blame solely on the cdp.... Marantz bits aren't exactly dull sounding, shall we say coupled with bright sounding metal dome tweeters- i have metal dome tweeters with a bright sounding cdp but have always toned it down with amplification- nad, arcam, now plinius :cool:
 
That is the same almost as my starter system many years ago with the marantz pm44se and 601,and i don't think it was that bad,easy to say once you've upgraded and can look back and critisize,the marantz amp is flat as a pancake i found,and thier cd players are over rated,by the media,but are still good,and again feel the finger of blame is not intirely its fault,as rory said the harvest yellow tweeter on the 600 series was very metallic sounding and forward,and is a hard characteristic to get rid of, no matter the other electronics (used on the end of valve amp),that metallicness remains.

The cdm1 were far smoother,then on the se version B&W changed some capacitors on the crossovers,which made the se brighter.
 
Only heard marantz and sony cdps tbh (aside from a 10 year old technics that is still going)

When I eventually get round to auditioning might give a couple of different players a spin as well just to see...
 
Actually, it is possible to temper the tweeter on the 602s (the goldish coloured one). In my case, it took Rotel electronics and FFRC speaker cable to rein it in, but now harshness is rare, and only prompted by very hard sounds (Bob Dylan's harmonica can do it).
 
It is unfair to blame one component for the sins of a system where synergy may well be lacking. Marantz / B&W is not a match made in heaven for their buget gear. At the top end they both use a similar voicing trick to increase "excitement and interest". Put together it is most likely too much.

The question I have is, if you're allergic to hardness, what is that ghastly FFRC doing in your current system? If it was in the Marantz / B&W system then it must have been pretty near unlistenable in the HF region!!!!

Cheers
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To the contrary, I found FFRC soft and dull in the treble. I'd have thought it a good choice to calm treble?
:confused:
 
Originally posted by Robbo
I had one of those (in fact I still do in the loft). I didnt think it was that bad, but it is easily beaten by more modern players
Click to expand...
I still have one (Marantz CD50SE) and to date it's still the only hifi (as opposed to portable) CD player I've ever bought. It's still going strong as the transport in my system having had a Trichord Digital Ooutput Board stuck in it (by me).

Even before though, I didn't think it was bad. Beaten my more modern players as Robbo says but pretty good for a 13 year old CDP that cost me £350.

Michael.
 
Originally posted by PBirkett
To the contrary, I found FFRC soft and dull in the treble. I'd have thought it a good choice to calm treble?
:confused:
Click to expand...

Paul

It depends on the system. As with any cable with a strong electrical characteristic, it's performance will be governed and more drastically affected by kit used with it. It also depends on how you make it, but it tends towards a high capcitance I'm told, which can make many things sound ragged a the top. Certainly the stuff we had here managed to make Tannoys sound aggressive with several different amplifiers, which is quite a trick!!

There is nothing wrong with high capacitance cables (unless you're a Naim owner :D:D:D:D:D ;) ), Isolda is one for instance, but Townshend don't leave it's electrical characteristics down to change as viewed by the kit at either end (hence the cable terminations). I'll bet the Goertz equivalent is nowhere near as consistant or predictable from system to system.

Horses for courses of course, but FFRC sucks IMHO.

Cheers
 
Originally posted by Isaac Sibson
Actually, it is possible to temper the tweeter on the 602s (the goldish coloured one). In my case, it took Rotel electronics and FFRC speaker cable to rein it in, but now harshness is rare, and only prompted by very hard sounds (Bob Dylan's harmonica can do it).
Click to expand...

I would have thought using a smooth copland valve amp,and smooth audioquest midnight cables,would have more of an effect,than the change of ffrc cable,unfortunatley it didn't and the tweeter remained bright and spitty to me.But to be honest you can't appreciate this until you live with better speakers, then switch back,and you see just how bright the original 601 were.

This isn't a critisism as im a B&W fan,and used thier speakers for many years.
 
Originally posted by timpy

Horses for courses of course, but FFRC sucks IMHO.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Whoooo there Timpy :eek: , you best watch out mate, CJ will be in like Flynn :D , shame on you too, and a dac 20 owner as well, you'll be black-balled, but in all fairiness you are quite correct. :)
 
Originally posted by timpy
Horses for courses of course, but FFRC sucks IMHO.
Click to expand...

But you'll notice, I didnt disagree :D

To my ears, it doesnt sound any better than speaker cable costing less than £2 / metre.
 
FFRC the way I build it certainly is not harsh in the treble. It's not lacking treble, but it is smooth and avoids harshness.

Since you're in cheltenham, pretty much single-figure mileage away, I'm happy to loan you a proper set sometime should you wish?

Certainly it was an enormous improvement on Cable Talk 3, and some people who've bought from me have used it to replace Silver Anniversary Biwire, which comes in at a hefty £8.50/m.

I don't claim that it's the be all and end all of hifi cables, because obviously it isn't. What it IS is damn good for the money.

I do recognise that the original 600 series are quite harsh at the top end, but I've found that they can be tempered this way.
 
I'm sure Timpy will gladly take up the option :) you can do a direct comparsion with some £4@meter off the roll stuff we've got kicking about, should prove an intresting comparision.
 
Originally posted by PBirkett
But you'll notice, I didnt disagree :D

To my ears, it doesnt sound any better than speaker cable costing less than £2 / metre.
Click to expand...

Indeed I did notice that ;)

Isaac, many thanks for the offer. I don't doubt that that there is better FFRC in the world than I (I say "I" in the loosest possible sense, the beauty of having students lying about :D ) knocked up, but to be honest unless it is likely to rival Isolda then I'll pass thanks.

The trouble with having had much much better cabling is that you can't imagine ever going back. Having tried the Isolda in one of my other two systems, it would benefit (no scrub that, it does need it!!!!!!), even though it would be the single most expensive component in the system. 2 * 4 metres = 500quid!!

Where's the secondhand section..... :D:D

Cheers
 
But therein lay my point.

You can't flatly say FFRC sucks when comparing it to a cable that costs over £60/m! It is reasonable to compare it with other cables that cost similar and a bit more, eg QED Bronze, Cable Talk 3, QED SA, Cable Talk 4, etc, around the £3/m - £10/m area, because that's the sort of system that it fits into. Those are also the sorts of cables that one would reasonably expect to use with a budget speaker such as the DM600 series.

Horses for Courses is exactly right, and I don't think that many people are going to go spending twice as much on speaker cable as they did on speakers. Thus townshend Isolda isn't exactly the horse for the DM600 course, whereas FFRC stands quite well in comparison to the other (previously mentioned) horses that ordinarily would be found on this course.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top