[billinkansas]

If anyone cares, here’s what happens when I get a little idle time around the holidays. To satisfy my own curiosity, I’ve been doing some critical headphone listening, mostly with some of my vintage amps and receivers that I’ve accumulated over the past few years. Music was mostly varied classical, a little jazz and rock. I don’t have sophisticated headamps to throw into the mix, so I don’t know how some of them might fare in the standings. Since it is so difficult to remember subtleties for any length of time, I made an instant amp change switch for quick comparisons, built out of Rat Shack lever switches and a Beyer extension cable. I’m sure that the switch unit adds some sound of its own, but the overall effect of the amps can indeed be compared. I’ve named my invention the “A/B Dick Head” (with apologies to the well-known office supply company). My cans are well broken-in Beyer DT 880s. Here’s what I found:

1st place (tie)
Fisher 500C receiver (1968, unrestored) Wonderful expansive soundstage, bass rolloff cuts deepest bass, especially lowest pipe organ tones

Stereotech (Mcintosh) 1200 receiver (ca 1977) Nearly as ambient as the Fisher, full bass response. Ever so slightly plump Mac sound fits the DT880s very well.

2nd
Luxman L-430 integrated amplifier (ca 1984) Pretty good soundstage, slightly more detail than the Fisher or Stereotech, slightly cleaner bass than the Stereotech.

3rd
Luxman L-210 integrated amplifier (ca 1984)

4th
Hafler SE-100 Preamplifier

5th
Harman Kardon HK-450 receiver (ca 1978)

6th
Nikko NR-650 receiver

7th
Creek OBH-11 with OBH-2 power supply

8th
Marantz 1060 integrated amplifier (ca 1976) A real disappointment for sure! Very quiet amp with nice detail, but a boring, dull presentation. I was expecting more interesting music from such a highly regarded piece such as this.

 

[mkmelt]

Regarding the Marantz 1060, I agree with your observations regarding the amplifier being quiet with nice detail. Can you be more specific about what you found lacking in the presentation. Was it the overall tonal balance that you found lacking? What did you think of the soundstage and ambience capabilities of this amplifier?

The 1060 generally works best with high impedance phones, so at least as far as impedance, the DT-880 (rated at 250 ohms) should be a good match for this amplifier.

How long have you owned your 1060? It could be that someone previously has modified this example or it may be out of spec. Just a thought.

 

[Tuberoller]

Thanks Bill,

That was a cool write-up and fun for all us vintage gear fans to read. You observations of the Fisher are spot-on. You should also try it with AKG K1000 earspeakers for a nice listen. This combo is not the last word in accuracy but sounds great and has that "magic" that so many of us seek.

 

[billinkansas]

MK,

To be fair, I don't know the history of the Marantz. Everything about it seemed to operate normally. I have since sold it so i can't be any more specific than that (new owner is very pleased with it). The Marantz sounded ok to me at first, but this odd project started several weeks ago when I plugged my Senn HD-555 cans into a modest old Sansui 441 that my kids use for their TV and movies, a $10.00 yard sale find. In unscientific terms, the little Sansui put the music in a larger and more reverberant space, while with the Marantz it was as though there was carpeting everywhere. The recording was a Chandos CD of Chopin Etudes played by Louis Lortie. With the 1060’s good reputation, I blamed my 555’s - must be just boring (they are a little bit), but through the Sansui I could hear and almost feel the ‘bloom’ of the big Steinway. This is the phenomenon where an acoustic instrument actually gets louder and fuller for a half-second or so just after it is struck as the soundboard and rim resonate to develop the tone (mostly upper bass and midrange with a Steinway, crummy pianos don’t do this very much if at all). That resonance is what momentarily sustains the tone to create the sonic illusion of a smooth musical line with a percussive instrument such as the piano, xylophone, bells, etc. I’ve played so many great pianos of different makes that would do this, old healthy Baldwins and Mason Hamlins are the ‘bloomiest’. I kept listening to the CD over and over because I couldn’t believe that I could actually hear this so clearly in a recording. The ‘bloom’ was simply not there with the Marantz.

I would use the little 441 and be happy if not for the audible noise floor. In the above rankings, I would put it as a tie with the Creek - much more musical, but serious downgrade for the noise. I don't need any more gear right now, but I would like to try some 'higher up' Sansui stuff sometime. Isn’t it fun to fart around with old stuff! Happy New Year!

BK

 

[MichaelFranks]

Great stuff Bill, very well done! Glad you are happy with the fisher, I haven't heard anything that can compete with the 400 to date....

 

[mkmelt]

I misunderstood when I thought that all of your previous observations were made using the Beyer DT-880 phones. I can't comment on the performance of the HD-555 with the Marantz 1060. The 150 ohm impedance of these phones, although not as high as the HD-580 and HD-600, is certainly in the upper range of the headphone impedance.

Your Marantz 1060 was probably operating correctly, sometimes there is such a lack of synergy between components that the resulting sound shows off an obvious bad match. Sounds like what you had with the HD-555 and the 1060.

The Marantz 1060 is a very good match for the Sennheiser HD-580 and HD-600 phones. Only the more natural sounds of vocals and a smoother-sounding midrange I experience when using one of my tube amplifiers can pull me away from using my Marantz 1060 with my HD-600 phones.

 

[billinkansas]

MK,
It was my experience with the 555's that first got me thinking. I didn't have the 880's at that time, but later the Marantz was dry with those too, and dry with speakers as well. Given the high regard for the 1060, I wonder if I had a dog amp. Long ago in 1976, I bought a new Marantz 2230 receiver, similar amp innards to 1060 I think. It sounded really good with my Yamaha NS690 speakers which I still use today. Shortly thereafter I bought some Marantz electrostatic headphones which I remember as being magical with the 2230, but not at all comfortable - hot and heavy to wear as I remember. I had a friend who had a 2235 with big Klipsch speakers that sounded maybe even better to me than my Marantz 2230 / Yamaha NS690 rig. It was my experience with those old receivers, and advice both from this forum and the Asylum that led me to purchase the used 1060 amp. I cannot deny my experience with it, but I would be interested in trying another Marantz in the future. I did like the way it was built. On the bright side, I almost doubled my money on the 1060 - made enough to cover the $60 that I paid for the mint Stereotech 1200 that I got in a Pawn shop. I'll take that deal any day!!

 

[CSMR]

Thanks for your impressions billinkansas.
I haven't been stunned with my Marantz 1060 either. I don't know what it is, since it is my first real headphone amplifier, but somehow it doesn't noticeably improve the sound over not having a dedicated amp. Assumed it must be my ears. My headphones are HD580s, source Entech 205.2 DAC mainly. I have ordered some contact cleaner to see if that makes a difference.
There is a noise floor on mine, although it is never obtrusive.