Price Paid:  $0.00 from Sears

Summary:
I bought this receiver new back in college...sometime in the early 1990s and I have been using it ever since. I've really been happy with it this entire time and it's still working perfectly 10-15+ years later! It's not a super powerful amp, but it's loud enough for my livingroom. With a good set of speakers it responds well. Good frequency response. I wouldn't consider myself a true audiophile, but I am a musician and recognize a good sounding system. I think it was worth the price and more.

Price Paid:  $200.00 from Camera World

Summary:
Actually the receiver I have is the vsx-403. I bought it in 1995 because it was the most affordable a/v receiver I cound find. I wish I'd waited longer and looked farther. It's rated at a continuous 65 wpc which I believe is accurate. It has no trouble driving inefficient speakers and passive sub. I'm impressed with its flawless reliability but honestly the only thing about it that's better than the old Marantzes is the fact that it has a remote contol. Too bad resale value is so low, I've seen these and similar models on ebay for $20-$40. Next time I'll save longer and buy another Marantz, NAD, Rotel or even Sherwood Newcastle.

Strengths:
Solid and reliable, takes all the use and neglect I give it without complaint. Has sleep timer.

Weaknesses:
Sound is strained compared to vintage Marantzs'. Remote can't tune stations directly and has exclusive funtions not on front panel. Front panel black with almost invisible lettering is dark, hard to read. Amber display is ugly and washes out during daytime. AM section sounds terrible with buzzing noise that can't be tuned out.

Similar Products Used:
Vintage Miida receiver, Marantz 2220b, 2270

Summary:
I came up with the same occurence that Bryan R the right chanel has lost its power. In my case that happens only in some inputs so the amplifer part is still OK. I gave the amplifer to friend of mine and he looked it and chanced some components and fixed some solderings. I don't know if it is going to work until I test it at home after work.

Overall I can say that it is oldfashioned nowdays what comes to home theatre but works fine in stereo if it happens to work at all.

Summary:
I must say that this receiver was a great buy. I bought it late 1996 and it has been going strong ever since. It's really no good compared to the receivers availible today, but I must say that I'm very pleased with the buy.

It's not my primary receiver today, but it does a great job when hooked up to a computer or a playstation.

If i weight in all the aspects of pricetag, durability, and comparisons between other similar products back then I must give it a quite good raing...

Strengths:
Good value for the money and a good entry-level receiver (for back then, that is).

Weaknesses:
Somewhat poor power output. Bass is distorted at high volumes.

Summary:
Make no mistake about it, I'm not suggesting anyone go out and buy one used; however, I will defend the product on its objective. It was meant to be an entry level product for individuals on a budget. One has to take in accord that this was still a relatively new technology, at least at the consumer level. The industry in 1996 was just graduating from basic surround at the consumer level. I had it paired with BA speakers and the system rendered a decent reproduction of sound, and for $279 we need not but this old guy in the Hall Of SHAME!

Strengths:
Price for entry level

Weaknesses:
lack of DTS and some bass distortion