McIntosh vs. Marantz ...... sonics?

Check out audioclassics.com for ideas. I like a 1500 or 1700 better than the all solid state models.

Generally receivers sound good with simple music but falter with complex music which requires dynamic swings. From soundstaging, 3-dimensional realism to bass slam, refinement and dynamics, most receivers wouldn't hold a candle to audiophile-grade quality amps if partnering ancillaries and speakers are up to the task.

Mcintosh is superior in every way. It sounds far better, the build quality is way better, and I think it looks much cooler.

Mc is a big line to compare, but in general it's a step up, unless the distinctive but typically loose, warm and relatively average (in my opinion) vintage sound of the popular vintage Marantz receivers is what you like.

Unless the vintage Marantz is refurbished or upgraded with more modern parts, perhaps. But then, it is something other than what it was originally.

YEs the tuners in some of the better vintage Marantz receivers are quite nice, as were many tuners in the better receivers of the day.

I sold Marantz and many other popluar receivers back in their heyday. I was never a big fan of the Marantz sound, though I suspect that using the Marantz's with some more modern and higher efficiency speaker designs that have improved in many ways since then would help and could make for some decent combos by modern standards, at least for some kinds of music.