Build Quality

[Dave Rubin]

I recently inherited a bunch of consumer-grade components (receivers, CD players, etc.) .... and discovered that most of them were slightly broken. A dead channel here, crackly sound there, and the like. I also had occasion to bring my Sony Pre-pro in for repairs. Since it costs upwards of a C-bill to even get components looked at, it really set me wondering whether any of the odd pieces inthe new managerie were worth trying to salvage.

So I asked the repair guy. He lamented the low quality of most components that have been built in recent years, but said that many older pieces are built better, and might be worth repairing for use as a spare room system (I've got a few needy spare rooms). Is my vintage Marantz 2230 receiver worth repairing, when I see them available used for roughly the price it would cost me to repair mine?

The primary culpret seems to be heat dissipation. With the current trends toward smaller profiles and tons of gadgety features, without a nicely cooled room or spacious rack, these components will literally burn themselves out.

I am perhaps one of the few people to have an ATI-1505 take a dive on them, as mine made a habit of blowing its main fuse, and is now being serviced by the manufacturer. I had a wonderful conversation with one of the founders over there, who provided me with an RMA number in the low 200s, remarking that their entire product line is built with such gusto, that only these 200-some have been returned for service in the 12 years they have been keeping track, and that half of those, the problem was not even reproducable on the bench. So despite being one of the statistics, this is the build quality that I like to own.

So now I am soon to be in the market for a new HT-Receiver and Universal Player. What is the state of build quality among the most popular brands now available? Is increasing build quality a feature llimited to the upper echelon of components, or is it possible to obtain units that will last a generation or two within a mid-fi budget?

(PS - Denon has caught my eye. Any comments on those?)

[Lex]

Hey Dave, good to see you.

I'd say many older components are worth fixing if they do what you want to do. Not all will of course.

As to the state of quality today. Well, a lot of Mid-fi stuff is giving some problems. Rotel has experienced it, and many others I am sure. So, while high end is not ammune to problems either, I'd say generally you get what you pay for. Higher end products are likely going to outlast their mid-fi brethren on average. But then there are no absolutes.

Doug

[Patt]

The older 70's recievers are so darned nice looking and have very good sound for two channel. My 2 channel Denon for the last 12 years has never had a problem and in a minute I'd trade it for one of the older smooth sounding Marantz recievers.

[Pieter]

As Doug states, “But then there are no absolutes”

Case in point: Bought a Meridian 200 transport and matching 203 DAC in 1991 for the price of what equates to over a third the cost of a small car in this country. The optical pick-up mechanism decided to give up the ghost after 3 years of use. Boy, was I miffed! Cheesed off to the extant that I’ll NEVER even look at another Meridian unit again.

It did sound great, whilst it lasted.

You only need to get your fingers burnt once to steer you towards other manufacturers.

[Shane Martin]

So now I am soon to be in the market for a new HT-Receiver and Universal Player. What is the state of build quality among the most popular brands now available? Is increasing build quality a feature llimited to the upper echelon of components, or is it possible to obtain units that will last a generation or two within a mid-fi budget?

Denon receivers have been well regarded. I hardly see a post from someone with issues. Their DVD players have some bugs though(as most do it seems). It just depends on if those bugs will "bug" you or not. You know the saying "Every Dog has its fleas" .. Well you just have to figure out which fleas and dog you can put up with. The closer to $300 you get with a dvd player, the buggier they get I've found.

[Jam_Master_J]

I've been looking at amps and a cd player for my new 2-channel rig, I remember being impressed by the quality of the Cambridge Audio Azur line of products.

[ProAc_Fan]

Having owned 2 of Cambridges CD players ( D300 and D500SE) I'll have to disagree. Both players seemed cheaply built to me. Thus they weren't around too long. Cambridge seems to be in the same class as NAD. A little nicer than the mass market junk you find at BestBuy but hardly worth lusting over. I've always admired Rotels and Denon's build quality. I can't say how those brands perform now but I know they USED to be very nicely put together.

Mike

[Ovation]

Well, I have a Cambridge 540D and it is EXTREMELY well put together at its price point (or even double). Can't speak to the older models, but the Azur line is certainly well built.

[gd]

Ditto... got the 540R receiver, and build-wise, it is a big, full cut above anything else at the same price.

[DrJRapp]

I must throw my hat in the ring for Cambridge Audio's Azur line. I have a 640A integrated and a 640C CD player and the build appears to be excellent. Rumor has it that some of CA's Azur pieces are built by BBK electronics in China. BBK has production output on the order of Sony and Panasonic and have products that range on the low end like Winbase and the high end as OEM suppier to CA, Parasound, Hall and Rotel.