Are Vintage Quad Receivers becoming Least in Demand

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

quicksrt

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 5, 2002
Messages
4,081
Location
Los Angeles
Of the vintage quad equipment out there, are the amps and receivers becoming least likely to appreciate in value due to the abundance of 5.1 receivers that have 6 analogue inputs?

These newer units with stronger newer electronics and lower prices I see must have dented the market somewhat.

Where tape decks, CD-4, and SQ decoders are needed for playback and conversions, those receivers are not so mandatory anymore are they?

I was in a friends garage a month ago and saw he had an old Marantz four-channel receiver that looked to be in stunning condition. But the reality is a newer (AVR) one might just sound cleaner and have fewer issues to deal with.

Anyway I loved the look of that old Marantz 4-chan sitting there. It's his wife's that once belonged to her father.
 
Last edited:
Not in my area they aren't, those upper level Marantz, Sansui and pioneer's are commanding upwards of $1000 in good shape

It makes sense that a Marantz 4400, QRX-9000, QRX-999, Pioneer 949a, etc command serious $$$. They did when they were new.

And they have far more curb appeal than modern gear. the WOW factor. My hardtop convertible has no WOW factor unless the top is down. My ragtop constantly got "cool car." They're the same car, but for 2 years difference, hard top, Nav/DVD-A and leather seats.

I would expect that lower line, lower power Quad receivers wouldn't hold their value.

There can be lots of issues with old Quad reveivers, even if you have them recapped. Most speakers were efficient back then. Of course, there were exceptions like AR3's.

Quad receivers often were low power. Back then, Marantz 2ch & Quad receivers tended to have amp sections that greatly exceed their rated power. Still, a 20 w/ch receiver that puts out 35 w/ch is still small for medium and low efficiency speakers.

Transistors and non-ic amplifiers beat a chip for the entire amp, IMHO. If part of that chip is gone, you'll need a whole new IC. Old and new, most of my electronics have discrete components in the amp section. Disclaimer: I have a Sony HTIB and a Onkyo 5.1 receiver w/IC packages. I didn't buy either one.

Ease of controllability might be a concern unless you gat the Marantz (wired) remote. All it does is volume, balance and loudness contour. Even then, it would take a lot of switches to control 6 (5.1) or more channels of source, speakers, etc. Another issue might become lack of HDMI.

Since I have both, I'm not advocating one over the other, . My main system is built around a surround preamp, etc. Lots of switches, phono transformer, n/r, decoders, demogitators, etc. My secondary system is a 7.1 receiver w/SQ & CD-4 added on. There are 3 more MC surround receivers and an HTIB. I also have 3 Quad systems and yes, I can play DVD, etc on them.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking with the advent of the Surround Master, the vintage quad receivers would be reborn. Since it is a more advanced and reliable decoder. I'm running 4.2 right now. My 4300 is bridged to 100 W x 2 for the fronts. I have a 2270 for the rears, 70 W x 2. Oppo outputs directly to those receivers and two SVS subs. Oppo volume control. Some extra fiddling to fire it up and shut it down, but I like it. I'm hoping the new SM preamp will fit in between the Oppo and the two Marantz. And allow me to switch between 4.2 from DVD-A/SACD, and 4.2 SM simulated quad.
 
There's an abundance of AVRs with multichannel analog inputs? News to me. As far as I know Marantz is the only major brand that still has them.
Yes, there is tons of them out there to be found. AVRs last many many years. One needs not worry about getting the latest black plastic box on the shelves of Best Buy in order to find a good one.

Should be easy to find in the wild for 10 to 15 years.
 
The specs I quoted for my gear is RMS into 8ohms, all channels driven. RMS has pretty much been the standard for a long time. None of this IHF, IPMP, IPP or IPOOPOO stuff.

Denon is the heart of my second system 110x7.

My main system has 2 power amps and a REL T-9 sub. 5 x 250 w/RMS + 1000w/RMS for the sub.
 
I don't know? Is it important at this point in time - or should I just be glad it sounds like it's powerful enough to break my apt. lease if I wanted out.

It feels like 100+ to me.


I guess it's just important to comparing apples to apples. Your system could sound better with more true watts/channel? Quad Linda may have insight on that.

I know when I bridge my Marantz 4300 from 40 wpc to 100 wpc( both RMS), the difference is immediately obvious.
 
I think it depends on the unit or brand- there were a hell of a lot of quad receivers made in the 1970s. Some from store brands like Sears or JC Penny are dirt cheap. Even some of the Sony and JVC models aren't too hard to find for under $200. It's the units with all the fun bells and whistles (VU meters, joysticks, and especially oscilloscopes) that are still very expensive. The Marantz 4400 and Sansui QRX-9001 are two that come to mind.

Even the standalone Panasonic scope (SH-3433) often tops $1000. Someone really should figure out how to recreate that in software, perhaps as a plugin for Foobar, JRiver, or Kodi.

I love my Marantz 4070 and would never think of replacing it with a modern unit. Why? The physical balance and volume controls on the front. It's so easy to make front-to-back balance adjustments or isolate channels with the sliders. Plus, it was recently serviced when I purchased it, so no crackly knobs or fading bulbs (The Lafayette LR-4000 it replaced suffered from both). I don't know what the specs are, but it sounds great and can be cranked.

marantz_4070.jpg

I have a 7.1 Onkyo unit that's maybe 3-4 years old in my other room, and I can't stand using it for surround listening. Want to adjust the rears or center? You have to go through five different menus and listen to test tones. The Audyssey setup with placing the little microphone around the room is painfully slow. There's an unnecessary amount of different DSPs that all sound the same to me (PLII Game, PLII Cinema, PLIIz, PLIIx, etc etc), and none of them come close to what my QSD-2, Tate, or Surround Master can do with a stereo source. Not to mention that it's very easy to accidentally leave one of those on when playing a surround disc- I can think of a few instances in the polls where someone rated a surround mix low and later realized they left PLII or THX on.
 
I love my Marantz 4070 and would never think of replacing it with a modern unit. Why? The physical balance and volume controls on the front. It's so easy to make front-to-back balance adjustments or isolate channels with the sliders. Plus, it was recently serviced when I purchased it, so no crackly knobs or fading bulbs (The Lafayette LR-4000 it replaced suffered from both). I don't know what the specs are, but it sounds great and can be cranked.

View attachment 37942

I had never seen one of those. Beautiful layout. Here are the specs...

http://www.classicaudio.com/value/mz/4070.html
 
Back
Top