how would a vintage marantz reciever compare to a simlarly price meta42?
Apr 9, 2003 at 7:48 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 8

absolutofft

Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 11, 2002
Posts
89
Likes
0
It appears as though marantz recievers like the 2250 and the 1060 are highly regarding vintage recievers, how would the sound quality of something like these compare to a similarly priced meta42?
 
Apr 9, 2003 at 9:52 AM Post #2 of 8
I own both a 2270 and a 2275.... have _not_ heard a meta42. The old Marantzes are built like absolute tanks, but in terms of sound quality, I really don't think they'll compare to newer high-end gear. (to say that my Sonic Frontiers-Berning gear trounces the Marantz stuff would be quite an understatement.)

The other issue is repair and reliability. As I said, the construction quality of the old Marantz stuff is great, but you're dealing with lots of ancient capacitors and pots and other components, and God help you if you ever have to replace the selector switch.

I do have a soft spot in my heart for these units, but if I were buying new, I'd probably save my pennies for a good modern design.

Just my 2 cents; others may of course vigorously disagree.

-- Bob
 
Apr 9, 2003 at 2:11 PM Post #3 of 8
Quote:

Originally posted by hannibal
I own both a 2270 and a 2275.... have _not_ heard a meta42. The old Marantzes are built like absolute tanks, but in terms of sound quality, I really don't think they'll compare to newer high-end gear. (to say that my Sonic Frontiers-Berning gear trounces the Marantz stuff would be quite an understatement.)



Heh. I think the Sonic Frontiers and Berning Equipment will eat Meta42's for lunch also
wink.gif
 
Apr 9, 2003 at 2:14 PM Post #4 of 8
Hirsch,

Sure, but we are kind of talking apples and oranges, as thus far I have been using the headphone jack of the preamp, which othere here have said is not necessarily so insanely great. I can easily compare this to the headphone jack of my 2275 and report back to the group on the differences.

-- Bob
 
Apr 9, 2003 at 3:37 PM Post #5 of 8
I have a 2238 at work, and have compared it to my META42 ($140 in parts) and A47 ($35 in parts), it seems comparable to the A47, with stronger looser bass and a bit more harshness. The potentiometer is a more unbalanced also. My META42 is clearly better across the board, but of course all META42s differ in their construction. If you need a tuner, preamp, and poweramp then obviously the Marantz receiver would be a wiser choice.
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Apr 9, 2003 at 10:52 PM Post #6 of 8
A vintage Marantz amplifier or receiver can be a better value than a new amplifier, because it is already fully depreciated. In today's dollars, these units would cost upwards of $1700 to build and sell today. Just as the upper end of today's consumer audio home theater receivers cost in the range of $2000 and higher, this is where the Marantz gear would be priced.

The Marantz gear offers:

- Phono preamp (rarely found on today's gear)

- Preamp/Power amplifier (on many of these vintage models the preamp and power amplifier can be operated independently)

- Balance control and tone controls with separate bass, midrange, and treble controls (Unless you are a purist who would never think of using tone controls to modify and improve the sound of a mediocre or bad recording, this type of tone control configuration is superior to the usual configuration of only bass and treble not only because the midrange (700Hz)can be controlled separately, but because the bass control is set to a lower turnover frequency of 50-100 Hz, while the treble control has a higher turnover at 15Khz.)

- AM/FM stereo tuner (ok, no station presets here, but with a decent signal a properly aligned analog FM tuner will sound better than most of today's digital frequency synthesis tuners. For classical and jazz programming, this is FM radio the way it was meant to be heard.)

- Headphone jack with the ability to drive any, even the most inefficient, dynamic headphones including the AKG K1000 headphones to more than needed volume levels. Works great with high impedance designs such as Sennheiser 580 and 600 headphones too. Also drives low impedance headphones well. Any of today's solid state amplifiers can drive a pair of Grados, or other high efficiency low impedance headphones, but not many do as well with the high impedance models.

While nothing lasts forever, just about the only part on the Marantz gear that has been proven to fail over time is the power switch button. This switch can easily be replaced. These units were manufactured using the best quality parts and attention to detail during assembly. I personally would not worry about a selector switch failing. Even though these units are more than 25 years old, a working unit in good condition should continue providing high quality audio for many years to come. How about another 25 years?

Many believe that the moderately powered Marantz receivers have the best sound. So while the 2270 and similar units are popular today because of their conservative power ratings probably being closer to 100 WPC instead of 70WPC, the better choice and value for headphone use may be one of the units such as 2215, 2220B, 2230, 2235B, etc.

Downside:

- Large chassis, heavy to move or ship (Much of the weight is due to the large power supply, this effectively filters out most AC ripple and is a key reason why these amplifiers and receivers sound as good as they do.)

- On the receivers, multiple tiny lamps inside the faceplate that will eventually burn out and will need to be replaced for the unit to maintain it's aesthetic value.

- No presets for the AM/FM radio on the receiver models

- No remote control of any kind. No wireless control for such features as power, selecting the source or for the volume control.

- No Dolby surround or DTS surround decoder. However, some of the integrated amplifiers allow a second pair of speakers to be connected in an ambience mode, a type of surround.

I would not compare a Meta42 or one of the other portable amplifier designs to any of the Marantz gear as the Meta unit is not suitable for driving the AKG K1000 headphones. I would compare the quality of sound of the vintage Marantz receivers and integrated amplifiers to units such as the Corda or similar stay at home AC line powered amplifiers costing $400 and up. For somewhere between $60 and $120, you can purchase a working example of a vintage Marantz receiver or integrated amplifier that will sound as good or better as a modern amplifier that costs several times as much as the Marantz and the Marantz will, as an added benefit, provide a wide range of other capabilities. That is the real beauty of these older amplifiers.
 
Apr 9, 2003 at 11:34 PM Post #7 of 8
Quote:

I would not compare a Meta42 or one of the other portable amplifier designs to any of the Marantz gear as the Meta unit is not suitable for driving the AKG K1000 headphones. I would compare the quality of sound of the vintage Marantz receivers and integrated amplifiers to units such as the Corda or similar stay at home AC line powered amplifiers costing $400 and up.


I owned a Corda for over 2 years, and compared it also. The META42 wiped the floor with the Corda (which I soon sold thereafter), and the Marantz. My META42 is AC powered. I don't think the Marantz is that great of an option if all you want is a headphone amp, unless you are powering something like the AKG K1000 or a transformer-based Stax energizer, or unless you have a very low budget.
 
Apr 10, 2003 at 1:46 AM Post #8 of 8

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top