I'd like a comparrison between NAD and Marantz please...
|
Bronze Member Username: AnubisBirmingham, West Midlands England Post Number: 41 Registered: May-06 | Sorry for the vagueness in the question, but I have seen a rather beefy looking Marantz integrated amp in my local Cash Converters. For the Americans among us, this is a modern kind of pornshop, but the size of a supermarket, whose staff do not specialize in any one field. If you like it you buy it; if you don't, you don't. No listening space and no refunds given. NOT a good way to buy Hi-Fi, but if you know what you're looking at, one can get an absolute steal and be laughing all way home, if you catch a good bargain. So since I didn't note the model number, I'm curious to collect opinions from those of you who have had the pleasure of comparing the two brands for detail, timing and dynamics - in a GENERAL sense. Like how do their philosophies compare when building? Maybe you've chosen one above the other hands down, or maybe you've had a hard time choosing. Perhaps you even own both? I own two NAD 30 series amplifiers at the moment which are quite old. I keep hearing good things about Marantz both here and elsewhere on the 'net. This amp I would say is much younger than my two. It's also more featured. My main concern is midrange detail, stereo depth of field and it's ability to convey dynamic texture in rock.... Oh and Bass control/extension/tightness is important - oh yes! I tend to value the individual characters of equipment and pretty much anything else I own. The old NADs really do have little characters of their own. I was wondering what people get from Marantz. They seem to go back a long way, with a firm Hi-Fi heritage....Yes? I'm quite interested in knowing more about their history. Any experience at all - I'd love to hear from you. Cheers, A/V |
|
Silver Member Username: Daniel_canadaCanada Post Number: 182 Registered: May-06 | pornshop? LOL!! Cash Converters in Canada are pawnshops. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AnubisBirmingham, West Midlands England Post Number: 42 Registered: May-06 | Great...! Yeah, ok...! Pawn shop then... Feck! Has anyone anything useful to say...?! A/V |
|
Bronze Member Username: AnubisBirmingham, West Midlands England Post Number: 43 Registered: May-06 | Since when did Canadians ever see themselves as American?  V |
|
Silver Member Username: DanmanQUEBEC CANADA Post Number: 628 Registered: Apr-04 | We have NEVER seen ourselves as Americans!!! To answer your question.....I have NAD but have listened many times to Marantz and it is very good stuff. Some of it you have to be careful as the lower end items tend to be a little rough and if you compare price wise, Nad has better quality sound. I have finally listened to the new Masters Series from NAD and was extremely blown away! After a few initial reviews from people on this board saying that it was not that exciting, well I can confirm that it WAS very exciting! I am not partial to NAD because I own it as I am always looking for something that will be worth spending extra bucks on for a difference in sound that is real and not only in my head. This did it for me and I may be on to my next purchase! |
|
Bronze Member Username: AnubisBirmingham, West Midlands England Post Number: 44 Registered: May-06 | Yes, I know you don't see yourselves as Americans. Anymore than we do, here in the UK Its good to read that you sampled both and that you own the NAD. Although I wasn't thinking initially of taking one person's word for it, I now feel swayed towards waiting for a higher specced NAD to come on the market; bide my time, instead of allow myself to be tempted into any impulse purchases, becaue they're cheap. Thanks again, Danman! A/V |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 3794 Registered: Dec-04 | Living next door to an 800 lb. gorilla has it's ups and downs, but I have a load of US-ians that I keep in touch with, never an issue at all. The issues come up in politics, not personal relationships, so I leave that doormat non-swept underneath. I listened to the Nad master series at Target hifi, with von schweigert speakers(o model) and left underinpressed. Now, remember that I was never a fan of the Nad delivery. Admiring or their amps capabilities, the technology in driving low impedence speakers is hard to beat, and the systems layout on the pre-amp is logical and straightforward(for stereo units). I just could not hear what I wanted on any of them. The Rotel stuff I listen to at the shops does deliver what I want. Faster, meaner and more competant at faster transitions, and very repeatable bass whacks at extended volumes, which I require now and then. The Marantz units I have heard were somewhat lower in class than the Nad, more pedestrian than, say, even an 8500 AVR, they showed promise, but lacked power for B&w 603's in one best case. I would have to listen to the Marantz again to be honest. BTW, what model was the Marantz? |
|
Bronze Member Username: AnubisBirmingham, West Midlands England Post Number: 45 Registered: May-06 | Cannie tell ye, Nuck... Did not look at the model number, or I would have posted it here. The topic is one of general build philosophy and sound character, rather than direct model comparison. Thanks for your input. Read thoroughly and with interest. V |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 3798 Registered: Dec-04 | Well,Varney, lemme tell ya about this old Marantz gold faced receiver circa 1973. This heavy old beastie powered a pair of homemade speakers with 15" Marsland bass amp cardboard woofers, Radio shack soft dome mids, and RS super tweeters in 250 lb cabs,all oak. In a small apartment, someone under the influence cranked the loud knob very far clockwise and broke all 3 windows in the place. I was deaf for days. Old Marantz was good, is new better? Dunno. |
|
New member Username: WattsssupON Canada Post Number: 4 Registered: Aug-06 | I apologize, I can't contribute to this discussion, I can only learn from it. But as I read through it, I had this to contribute: as a Canadian who doesn't see himself as American, I'd like to wholeheartedly agree with NUCK: "Living next door to an 800 lb. gorilla has it's ups and downs, but I have a load of US-ians that I keep in touch with, never an issue at all. The issues come up in politics, not personal relationships, so I leave that doormat non-swept underneath." |
|
New member Username: FractalPost Number: 8 Registered: Apr-06 | I'm not a really expert however most audiophiles say that the Marantz usually is somehow warm with well defined mids and highs while the Nad has more punch and drive. Me I've been using a Marantz amplifier for much more then a decade now. It has never had any problem (I use it every day for at least a couple of hours) and it still sound pretty decent in my opinion. Recently I compared the Nad C 352 and the Marantz PM 7001 and I think they are both good even if I found the Nad more "stressing", but maybe I'm just used to feel at home with the Marantz sound. The PM 7001 looks very good, with its well refined vintage look which maybe a lot of people don't like, but Nads (expecially the BEE 320) look much more worse with their dull plastic dress. The PM7001 is getting nice reviews from a lot of magazines. |
|
New member Username: NoutPost Number: 7 Registered: Mar-06 | Owning a Marantz PM 7200 for over a year of 3 I'm still very satisfied with its sound. My impressions as I recall them from a couple of years ago when I did a comparison: In comparison with NAD C352 the Marantz is less dynamic overall - with rock music the NAD is somewhat bolder, more impressive at first listen. The Marantz is more gentle, stress free - dull perhaps for some listeners. With classical music however Marantz' dynamics are different than with rock: crescendos are very impressive, as if it slowly builds up power to unleash it when asked for, bit it seems this "power building" is too slow for rock music. To my ears there's nothing wrong with the Marantz playing rock or pop, only in direct comparison with Rotel and NAD I found it a bit lacking in drive. But what the Marantz sets apart from the NAD is its soundscape, very wide and deep and it is very refined, sophisticated if you like, the midds are very smooth. I think the NAD is the better allrounder, the Marantz seems more "tuned" for classical music. And in general NAD will drive difficult speakers better than the Marantz (although my Marantz has no problems driving Dynaudio speakers at all). I haven't heard Marantz PM 7001, but I think both amps (NAD C352 and Marantz PM 7001) will not disappoint you - still I'll recommend to listen for yourself. |
|
New member Username: FractalPost Number: 9 Registered: Apr-06 | I wouldn't define the Marantz as dull and I think it's well capable of playing rock and so. Most people say the Marantz isn't suited for rock, but I don't exactly know what they mean, since others say the same for Nad. What I know is that I play alt rock on the Marantz and it sounds fine even if I think it excels on jazz and acoustic music. Maybe the key is in coupling with some fast, tight, not too sweet speakers (B&W, Focal...) |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 3806 Registered: Dec-04 | Hmmm...Varney, I cannot comment on the value of the pornshop unit in question. Nor can I offer a comment on the gear you will couple the Marantz with. At present I cannot comment on your listening habits, either. What's left? Well... I have run a couple of Rotel amps, and listened to a goodly few Nad's.Not so mant Marantz units for a few years, as they are out of my perview. Firstly, the Rotel power delivery is direct, indiscreet and immediate. There is no fooling one of these amps, and power is big block torque ready. Presently, I am running a RB985 100w(x5) amp in place of a Classe amp in the shop. Delivery of said power is maxed out at 50% on the pre. It is hyped. The Nad master series, with von schweigert spekers was, as usual, the typical Nad. Strong, powerful, with a velvet glove, if you will. No drop in power anywhere, balanced and beautiful, fully capable, but, for me, missing the punch, the verve, the, the, I can't name it, the immediacy, the anticipation of a snare snap, the crispness and agression of a crah that the Rotel does for me. This probably doesn't help, considering your OP, but since the place is asleep here, this is the best venting I can offer...until tomorrow at least. If you hear it, it is. |
|
Silver Member Username: RavbainsMelbourneAustralia Post Number: 247 Registered: Mar-06 | Hi Anubis, I would be careful, Marantz has produced a lot of mediocre amplifiers down the years. Just because it is a Marantz, it does not necessarily follow that it is good. Also Marantz, has a long and glorious past. But most of their past glories are mainly in the form of quite high-end equipments. http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/mindex.html So if you are looking to pick up a classic Marantz item for a song, best to do some research. Quality Marantz amps tend to be built like the proverbial, so if you are in Cash converters, eye ball the amp closely for build quality, and try to pick the thing up to 'feel the weight' !!! :-) For their newer stuff look out for a K.I. Signature badge, this means it is a stock Marantz item which has been 'breathed on' by their design supremo Ken Ishiwata, for the most part this means a stock item with upgraded components. I have read that Ken only bothers to create a KI-sig model if he feels that the stock item from the mainstream Marantz design department is a good piece with good potential. From the ground up Ken Ishiwata designs, tend only to be Marantz's absolutely top of the line statement products. I cannot characterise the Marantz sound, since for me it changes, it is a very technically diverse company using many different circuit techniques. I have with me at home a Marantz PM-17 KI signature, used in a bedroom system. It is a 16kgs beastie, very nicely built, but I would describe its' sound as very liquid like and laid back, so ideal for the bedroom. Compared to my main amp (an AVi Lab Series integrated, I would criticise the Marantz for a lack of speed and dynamics, but in the application I use the Marantz (relaxed non-critcal listening and DVD movie sound) it is fine. cheers Rav |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 3811 Registered: Dec-04 | Rav, a very good post! Always good info from you, online friend. I seem to be saying'listen to Ravi' a lot lately. So listen! |
|
New member Username: AsellusAucklandNew Zealand Post Number: 4 Registered: Jun-06 | Recently we compared a NAD C352 Amp and a Marantz SR4021. Our favourite, after comparing Yamaha and Cambridge amps was still on the Nad. Finally we compared a Marantz SR4021 receiver and a NAD C352 amp. Initially the Marantz stacked up well, but when the music got more musically complex,it started to some-how lag behind the music. The NAD always held its own whatever music we played, regardless of the musical complexity of the piece. Needless to say we ended up with the C352 and C542 CD player After owning it, we noted a very "soft" sound, as if all the instruments were wrapped in cotton wool.However, all the detail is still there.After listening over a period of weeks, things have livened up much more. The combination has all the detail, with little of the harshness and "hifi" ness of usual lower priced hifi equipment. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ZorroPost Number: 53 Registered: Jul-05 | everyone who lives in the American Continent is an American The 800 lb gorila was not named "America" but The United States OF America. In others words America is the whole piece of land from Alaska to Argentina. |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 895 Registered: Nov-05 | Plus some islands |
|
Silver Member Username: CheapskatePost Number: 547 Registered: Mar-04 | having owned an NAD... i can say that marantz is a lesser evil at the very least. unless you hate treble speed, extension & detail, avoid NAD like the plague! well... it is better at taming brighter speakers like missions compared to japanese recievers like onkyo, but it sounds flat out muffled on soft dome tweeters. compared to NAD & more treble detailed onkyo, panasonic class D walks all over both and takes a dump on them ESPECIALLY in the midrange. it images more precise yet wider too, digs deeper and tighter than onkyo in the bass, does much more extended and detailed yet relaxed treble than either and generally doesn't draw attention to itself once it's broken in. i love mine so much that i'll never do class A/B amps ever again. i think of my panasonic SA-XR70 as a poor man's halcro. i totally believe reports of people trading $1,000 denons in for $250 pannies. mine IMMEDIATELY wowed me in under 5 seconds even before it was broken in. female vocals sounded so much more palpable that it was on par with a speaker swap, not a reciever swap. that's my penny pinching 2 cents. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4692 Registered: Dec-04 | Somebody has to pitch the POS Panasonic when Eddie left. BM is the one. They suck and cannot reproduce music. |
|
Silver Member Username: Daniel_canadaCanada Post Number: 216 Registered: May-06 | You've been Nucked. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4698 Registered: Dec-04 | Anyhow, receivers should be boosted elsewhere. |
|
Silver Member Username: CheapskatePost Number: 549 Registered: Mar-04 | BS... panasonic totally gets out of the way so much that it finally gave me the clear low level details & treble extension that NAD couldn't ever do but without the grain i never knew was coming out of my onkyos. it spanks both brands to death with a sledgehammer in the imaging department too. nuck is just a panny hater... always was, and probably always will be. as to me... there's no way i'm ever going back to class A/B again... NUCK THIS! here's some OTHER opinions... don't be too quick to take ANY individual's word as gospel unless you like being labeled as a sheep. http://www.audioreview.com/cat/amplification/a-v-receivers/panasonic/PRD_321834_ 2718crx.aspx add my experience with my overachieving panny and that makes 5 blows... i'd call that a nuckout. but don't even take THAT... go to the audio asylum and read up on every other panny owner grinning slyly at all of the "it has to cost alot to sound good and justify my insecurities" people. i KNEW immediately when i heard a friend's $120 acoustic suspension minimonitors punching (rolled off true) bass at undistorted lightning speed with pinpoint imaging that all of those hideous large $1200 ported systems i'd heard before that just couldn't get it up were a joke and that cheaper can be better. $5k klipsh are the biggest joke followed by $2k bose! don't listen to ANYONE'S opinion! listen to the gear yourself and let your own ears decide. big ported speakers are the most evil of distortion boxes to my ears and class A/B amps don't offer much bang for your buck. BTW... relevant to marantz recievers, one of the people in the link i provided likes his panny better than HIS $1k marantz!!! nuck nuck who's there I8 I8 who I8 any gear that doesn't prove i make more money than you |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4739 Registered: Dec-04 | Keep the Panny flag flying, BM. I will keep quoting just as many people who have tried the thing and found it to be horribly hollow and bright. Thank you for mentioning the OP's Brand at least, if not the integrated amps in question. Shouldn't the Panny be debated in low priced surround receivers? Where I don't have to keep hearing how it works through your NHT 2-way tweeters? Natural sound should be more than Rosanne singing an anthem. |
|
New member Username: Sven_erikssonPost Number: 5 Registered: Nov-06 | listen to Jan Ving...he write about amps form top of line make loudest whatts! good buddie Jan ving sHow me Macintoch sond loudest! nuck also good buddie with amps...I like readng nuck also when he talk amps...nuck and jan ving write cool about amps from adiofile concerns.,..not somuch buget mind... |
|
Silver Member Username: CheapskatePost Number: 552 Registered: Mar-04 | to my ears, the panny IS natural sounding... super detailed, super relaxed, super fast and super imaging. i think your friends all like more romaticized sound EG. NADs hideous warmth. *vomit* yes... alot of people DO prefer a "friendlier" sounding rolled off treble, but not me. i hate it when metallic percussing sounds plastic. for everyone you know that doesn't like panasonic sound, i see several more people posting positive reviews on the net. some people just hate freedom from distortion. otherwise, EVERYONE would be making acoustic suspension speakers instead of evil resonant ported boomers. if you like to listen to music very loud, i can see where extended treble could be more painful on the ears as THAT'S where hearing damage is most likely, but i listen at around loud talking level usually. a polite treble at those volumes = unbearable ear strain. you can't ever trust ANYONE'S opinion with audio anyways. everyone has different priorities. mine are speed and total fredom from treble rolloff with maybe some bass rolloff. while B&W can't match the bass-midrange speed of my NHTs, they totally kick all butt in the treble extension dept. panasonic let my zeros gain half of the ground they couldn't with NAD & onkyo and DEFINATELY not the sony i borrowed for kicks. if there were one "correct opinion", there wouldn't be heated ported vs. sealed analogue vs. digital tube vs. solid state megawatts vs. eye fi tower vs. minimonitor single driver vs. multidriver cone vs. flat panel dynamics vs. detail & EQ vs. straightwire etc. debates. when listening to ANYONE'S opinion, it helps to know what their priorities are so you can weigh them against your own. i know that i hated the sound of the tube driven linear phase speakers i auditioned. the treble sounded dead. i remembered my friend's little grey foam 3/4" tweetered infinities driven by a humble 45wpc denon reciever had muck more sparkle. for ME, you lose that, you lose life sonically. i'm into precussion very much so that's probably why i'm a speed freak where sonics are concerned. i'm more than happy with my panny as it's the same technology as "the best amp in the world... halcro" but at a serious bang for the buck price. i instantly knew it was better than my NAD and onkyo units in every way in just a few seconds. layers of mud and veiling were removed and the soundstage cleared right up. the sound just relaxed and my listening fatigue dropped dramatically. it works for me... i LOVE class-d. i won't try to say it's "exciting" like euphonic gear, but that's exactly why i love it. it's totally matter of fact. it disappears. QUICKLY (it's better for the environment too) |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4771 Registered: Dec-04 | BM, tell me more about how class D amps are environmentally friendly. Tell me how making IC's from Silver oxide and Chromium and Arsenic is better than iron and copper. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4772 Registered: Dec-04 | Sorry to wreck your OP, Varney, BM is so full of Shite, I just cannot resist. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AnubisBirmingham, West Midlands England Post Number: 51 Registered: May-06 | I haven't ventured in, less bothered to read this thread, since it's months old now. I decided to leave the Marantz for someone else to buy and it's gone now. Lost in the vaccum of space, no doubt. I can go with BM's apraisal of 'listening for yourself' alright - but he's the first person I've seen alluding to NAD as muddy. BM, I can only assume there's something drastically wrong with the ones you've listened to. Anyway... None of this is important. I'm quite happy with what I've got. Now THAT must have something to do with NAD sounding just fine to mine ears. So BM's right again... Never trust someone elses ears. This is good advice, mate - I certainly won't be trusting yours! V |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4781 Registered: Dec-04 | hehehe |
|
Bronze Member Username: AnubisBirmingham, West Midlands England Post Number: 52 Registered: May-06 | OOh yes, and of course - we call the Marantz a 'Panny' in here... that's to show how much we've researched our brands to know the underlying maker. Many people will think of Marantz as being made by Marantz, when in fact, it's made by Binatone! (joke) Never mind all that - I can't remember - but I think it's Philip's top of the range brand. It's bound to be okay... 'Okay' being the operative word. Technics, being Panasonic's cream, I know all about them alright. Used to love my old SL series system when I was a little kid. When I tried a much bigger, heavier version, I had to jettison it in favour of the NAD classic I currently own. I liked them so much, I rooted around in the bush of the second hand market and found two! Lovely old things - but remember - we're talking a peanuts budget here. Varney likes to spend as little as possible on his audio and wangle the best results from within the limitations. You can talk to me all day about Panasonic-made Technics audio solutions, but I'm not going to buy one. Been there and done it. All boom and fizz, if you ask me. If I upgrade, it'll be into an entirely different spectrum of the market altogether. NAD is a fine tent-peg. It holds the cheaper solution together very well IMO. I don't quite know how a discussion surrounding Marantz became one about Panasonic, but then I guess I'd have to read the whole thing to see how the link formed. V |
|
Bronze Member Username: AnubisBirmingham, West Midlands England Post Number: 53 Registered: May-06 | Nuck - you're a prize-winning wind up merchant, man! It makes me smile. Don't get him all wound up now, will you... LOL! V |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4782 Registered: Dec-04 | I ain't just tryin' to stir the pot, V. I am sure that he is a seasoned veteran of lstening, and has enough experience to know what he likes. However, to toss out THAT combination, and claim accuracy is just too much. Accuracy in one range is fine, but claiming accuracy in full reproduction is a joke. And he shoots a look at me for spending too much money. Uh huh. I got my stuff 75% off, and he says he keeps a budget! A mind is a terrible thing to waste, ears are unfathomable. Skol! |
|
Silver Member Username: CheapskatePost Number: 556 Registered: Mar-04 | first off.. class D is environmentally friendly because it's 90% efficient vs. just 50% efficient for class A/B and only 20% for class A. i DON'T do chemical analysis when buying gear, but i imagine the same chemicals are used in A/B gear, but more of them! class-d gear is DEFINATELY smaller and lighter than class A/B. my 100wpc panny is both 1/2 the size and weight of my 55wpc onkyo (with 1 or 2 less channels)... the NAD was a major pig with just 2 channels and 20-25wpc continuous. (50wpc equivalent though) 2nd... i DON'T claim to have heard ever top dollar piece of gear ever made as i mostly listen to gear i can afford. i HAVE listened to some big $$$ gear though so i at least have a frame of reference. i KNOW that the panasonic fixed all of the troubles i was having before (that drove me to audition lightning fast and resonance free planars) to the point where i didn't feel i needed them anymore. my system had a DEFINATE clarity problem (especially in the top octave) that neither NAD (which drove me to onkyo) or the onkyo could resolve but panasonic instantly did. oh yes... i DO love low level resolution (especially because i'm a low volume level listener) had both NAD and onkyo NOT sounded so weak and lifeless at low levels, especially in the treble, i wouldn't have gone shopping for alternatives. take this any way you want... i was ALWAYS straining my ears listening to both my NAD & onkyo gear at low volumes. i DID like my onkyo alot better than the NAD as it cleared the treble up noticeably as well as tightened the image up, but my panasonic removed all of the treble glaze i never knew the onkyo had, it totally relaxed the midrange and made it so much more palpable and dug deeper and tighter in the bass than onkyo could ever dream of. i never compared NAD bass to panasonic as i hated it's MUFFLED TREBLE (on soft dome tweeters) too much to use the nad for anything other than sub duty. NAD does dig deep into the bass and has alot of weight. my "20wpc" nad easily made my walls shake with a 12" woofer, but it also drove me nuts trying to watch movies and TV at night as everything turned into "pitgotdoluvfsysiz" (what did he say?) panasonic was a revelation FOR ME. it eliminated so much haze and sluggishness that i instantly fell in love with it. it isn't "exiting", but most sheep consider distortion (like loud ported woofer resonances) to be exiting. where everyone else wants "more more more" (volume, bass weight & dynamic swing etc.) i want less less less distortion and slowing down of transients. that's what panasonic gave me and what NAD and onkyo never could. if you like "romantic" sound, yes... you'll hate panasonic. i like matter of fact sound myself. those are MY PRIORITIES and panasonic suits them perfectly. i could NEVER hear ANYWHERE near the treble detail with NAD that i could with panasonic (or even glazed over onkyo for that matter!). i had NEVER heard the actual sound of the marimba beads in whatever track before in my life. the TEXTUREs for complex white noise type sounds was just so much more resolved as well as easier on the ears with my class D panny... (NAD = mega ear strain strain & onkyo = listener fatigue). if only my NHTs had B&W's excellent tweeters, i could be TOTALLY happy with my system. i still spank B&W in the midbass speed dept easily though. like those big 6 1/2" kevlar PORTED woofers could stand a chance against 4 1/2" sealed! |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4796 Registered: Dec-04 | I wonder if anybody has grafted those lovely tweeters from the Nautilus line onto different speakers. Where would you find them(or equivilant)? I doubt that partsexpress stock diamond tweeters. Of course the XO is half of the magic, I think they are first order from B&W. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AnubisBirmingham, West Midlands England Post Number: 54 Registered: May-06 | Okay so Budget_Minded likes Panasonic. *Yawn* Tell someone who cares... V |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics