[FCJ]

mkmelt,

O.k., I've decided that you're a bad influence on my wallet.

Why? Because after I read your post on your purchase of the Marantz 1070 integrated amp, I decided to look on ebay. I went to items for sale for the seller I mentioned in my last post (sstk100@aol.com), and guess what--he had a Marantz 1060 integrated listed for a "Buy It Now" price of $99. So, after justifying it to myself (which took about 40 seconds), I clicked on the BIN button, and it's mine. I guess what I will do is substitute it in my AKG K-1000 headphone system for the Marantz 2226 receiver.

Seriously, thanks for your post. There is nothing out there at the price that comes close to vintage Marantz gear.

 

[Nightfall]

Okay,

Thanks to all of you getting me interested in this, I've been poring over E-Bay, old reviews, value charts and everything else regarding this topic.
I want to grab one, at the most, eventually two really nice old vintage receivers, or one receiver and an integrated amp. These were the things I drooled over when I was a kid and already fascinated with audio.
I've been carefylly studying the marantz units, as they would be my top choice, but a lot of the ones that I really covet are still quite expensive, as in the 2325, 2385, 2500 and 2600 receivers.
Are the Sansui and Pioneer models from the same eras equally well built, with the same level of components and continuing reliability?
I've seen the very nice Sansui G9700 for "reasonable" prices, as well as the Pioneer SX1050.
Are there any other models that are particularily desirable, in terms of performance, and component quality, but dont cost a fortune?
I would appreciate any advice, suggestions or help. Thanks.


JC

 

[FCJ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Nightfall Okay, Thanks to all of you getting me interested in this, I've been poring over E-Bay, old reviews, value charts and everything else regarding this topic. I want to grab one, at the most, eventually two really nice old vintage receivers, or one receiver and an integrated amp. These were the things I drooled over when I was a kid and already fascinated with audio. I've been carefylly studying the marantz units, as they would be my top choice, but a lot of the ones that I really covet are still quite expensive, as in the 2325, 2385, 2500 and 2600 receivers. Are the Sansui and Pioneer models from the same eras equally well built, with the same level of components and continuing reliability? I've seen the very nice Sansui G9700 for "reasonable" prices, as well as the Pioneer SX1050. Are there any other models that are particularily desirable, in terms of performance, and component quality, but dont cost a fortune? I would appreciate any advice, suggestions or help. Thanks. JC

Is there any reason why you wouldn't consider the 2200 series Marantz receivers?

 

[mkmelt]

I personally don't think that Pioneer or Sansui had overall build quality and reliability as good as Marantz, Luxman, Harman Kardon, or Yamaha.

The top two or three vintage japanese consumer audio lines that dominated in each category (IMHO).

Tuners: Sansui, Marantz, Kenwood

Separate amplifiers and integrated amplifiers: Rotel, Luxman, Harman Kardon

Receivers: Marantz, Yamaha, Harman Kardon

Turntables: Micro-Seiki, Denon

Cassette decks: Nakamichi, Denon, Yamaha

Open reel tape decks: Teac/Tascam, Akai

Headphones (non-electrostatic) Yamaha

Headphones (electrostatic) Stax

In our house, a Sansui 5000X receiver/Dual 1229 turntable with Stanton 681EEE cartridge/KLH 6 speakers arrived in early 1971 to replace an aging vintage 1959 Bogen tube integrated monophonic amplifier and tuner and Garrard turntable and custom speaker cabinet.

That Sansui 5000X was a decent performer, 55watts/channel and the ability to drive three sets of speakers (two sets at one time only). I was weaned on Superex ST-Pro A headphones connected to that Sansui, while listening to CSN&Y, Jethro Tull, and Pink Floyd music. I don't think it sounded as good as the Marantz 2200 series equipment that came out a year or so later.

My suggestion would be to start out with a modest Marantz receiver in the 2200 series, and go from there. The higher powered and more feature laden 2300 series and after that followed were marketed in response to the receiver wars being waged by competing japanese manufacturers during this period.

These massive receivers were impressive, but did not necessarily offer superior sound, only impressive specifications and a list of features that would take an hour to recite. If my experience with vintage Marantz and Fisher gear has taught me anything, it is that simpler is better when it comes to electronic circuits and components. Fewer parts to fail, cooler running, more reliable, and shorter signal path result in purer sound.

I personally have never owned a Pioneer receiver or amp. There are many people who appreciate the early Pioneer receivers. In my opinion, Pioneer was a lesser product line, as their products were not carried by the better stereo shops. But I recognize that each brand had their strengths and weaknesses. If you really like the look of a vintage Sansui or Pioneer receiver, go for it.

For a listing of vintage (pre-1980) Sansui, Luxman, Pioneer, and Yamaha audio gear go to the following site at:

http://www.classicaudio.com/

 

[Nightfall]

Originally posted by mkmelt
I personally don't think that Pioneer or Sansui had overall build quality and reliability as good as Marantz, Luxman, Harman Kardon, or Yamaha.

The top two or three vintage japanese consumer audio lines that dominated in each category (IMHO).

Tuners: Sansui, Marantz, Kenwood

Separate amplifiers and integrated amplifiers: Rotel, Luxman, Harman Kardon

Receivers: Marantz, Yamaha, Harman Kardon

Turntables: Micro-Seiki, Denon

Cassette decks: Nakamichi, Denon, Yamaha

Open reel tape decks: Teac/Tascam, Akai

Headphones (non-electrostatic) Yamaha

Headphones (electrostatic) Stax

Very well done mkmelt, I agree with you pretty much across the board. My question about the Pioneer SX series receivers was in regard to the somewhat unexpected esteem they seem to hold for many based upon reports I've researched on the net lately. I honestly thought I had perhaps underrated them back when I was first aware of them, and reading EVERY review on EVERYTHING, when much younger. I never put them in the class of Marantz.
The only additions that I would make to your list would be Onkyo for some of their excellent early T series tuners, and Tandberg for some great casette decks, including the TCD440 that I still have. I also have owned a couple Tascam reel to reels that were outstanding, Denon turntables, Stax headphones (the SR4 electrets) and one Luxman integrated amp and later, a used power amp, in the early days after college and the first decent paying jobs.
Thanks for your thoughts, once again.

 

[Nightfall]

Quote:

Originally posted by FCJ Is there any reason why you wouldn't consider the 2200 series Marantz receivers?

Not if you feel that the component quality and build quality of that series were the equal of the other higher priced, higher powered series. I'm open to just about anything that has those attributes and a great headphone section.

 

[mkmelt]

I had a chance to compare the sound of CD source through both my Marantz 2235B receiver and my newly acquired Marantz 1070 integrated amplifier using HD-600 headphones. Both units are rated at 35watt/channel. I don't believe that the main amplifier section drives the headphones with either unit. I can verify this by decoupling the main amplifier section of the 1070 from the preamp section by removing the provided jumpers. If this is not as expected (no effect on headphone output), I will post an update.

Overall, I would rate the sound as being very similar. Plenty of extended deep bass, good sound stage and detail. Like the 1070, the 2235B also tends to make my HD-600s sound a bright on the top end, but dropping the treble control knob setting one ot two notches smoothes this right out.

I would give the edge to the 1070 for its ability to extract midrange detail from male and especially female vocals, such as on the Diana Krall CD, When I Look into Your Eyes. Listening to this CD using the integrated amp, I heard vocal emphasis and breathing in Diana Krall's performance that I had not noticed before.

By comparison, the Yamaha CA-400 has greater slam than either of the Marantz units, but the midbass reproduction, soundstage, resolution, and ambience was better with either of the Marantz units. Also, using the HD-600s, the sound of the Yamaha amp with my CD source had just a little too much presence. Dropping the treble control one or two notches takes care of most of this emphasis in the upper midrange/lower treble range. With a different source, such as my open reel tape, this tendency was not noticeable and the bass was mighty fine indeed.

 

[mkmelt]

Wow, look at all the fancy buttons and switches on the 2325 receiver. www.classic-audio.com/marantz/2325.html

16 push buttons, a gyro tuning wheel, balance slider, 8 rotary knobs and a power button. 125 W/channel and over 50 lbs of Japanese iron. This thing is a great example of japanese technology run amuck.

I said it before, and I still believe it to be true, simpler is better. The circuitry in the 2200 series is simpler, with fewer switches contols and doodads, and consquently these units have a shorter signal path, and still sound great, standing up to direct comparison with much of today's better gear.

The higher power capability of monster receivers such as the 2325 has no relevance when you are using it as a headphone amp. The headphone output on these receivers and integrated amplifiers is driven by a separate low powered amplifier circuit. The FM section on the 2300 series may have better specifications than on the lower end and midrange of the 2200 series such as the 2230 etc., but this not likely to be audible and even then, is only relevant if you live in an area with good FM listening and care to listen to the radio.

Don't let the high price of some of these units impress you. Before 1976, the U.S. dollar had held its value against the Japanese Yen. By 1977/78, the dollar had plunged against the Yen and guess what, all of the japanese audio gear started to cost more a whole lot more, something like 25% more, almost overnight.

With no choice if they wanted to continue selling product in the U.S. market, Japanese audio maufacturers had to start relying on automated production techniques, and started making extensive use of integrated cicuits (ICs), and overall using cheaper parts to manufacture stereo equipment at a lower cost so U.S. buyers could continue to be able to afford to buy a Japanaese stereo equipment.

So soon after that quality started to suffer, along with reliability and sound quality until by the early 1980s, only a few manufacturers were building the kind of quality products that audiophiles expected. Yamaha, Luxman, and Nakamichi were among the last Japanese maufacturers to lower their standards and product quality. Tandberg, Revox, and Bang & Olufsen were European so the devaluation of the US dollar had against these currencies was not the same problem as with Japan.

In closing, let me say that I've never heard anyone ever say that their vintage Marantz audio gear is just as good as products from Pioneer, Sansui, Technics or Kenwood. It never comes up for discussion in the same way that McIntosh and Fisher tube equipment is in a league by itself.

 

[FCJ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Nightfall and Tandberg for some great casette decks, including the TCD440 that I still have. [/B]

That's a name that I haven't heard in quite a while. I agree fully that they made some excellent cassette decks. Are they still around, I wonder?

 

[millerdog]

I was just wondering that if were to get one of these tube recievers like the Fisher 400, would it be the same as getting a dedicated tube headphone amp?
md

 

[mkmelt]

Yes, the Fisher 400 performs wonderfully as a headphone amplifier. You don't have any crossfeed option with the vintage Fisher, but other than that it can drive any headphone on the planet, regardless of impedance or sensitivity, including the somewhat demanding AKG K1000s. Sennhesier HD600s sound very good using a Fisher 400 too. I have also connected some Grado RS-1s and thought that these sounded very good too.

A Fisher 400 is much larger and heavier than most dedicated headphone amps, so a dedicated amp may be more convenient to place. The amplifier section of the Fisher uses 12AX7 type tubes (readily available as both current production, NOS, and used from many different manufacturers), and (4) 7868 beam pentode power tubes (no longer manufactured and only available as used or (expensive NOS).

If you do a search on Fisher 400 on this forum, you will find some good information about just how good the little Fisher tube receiver can be when used as a headphone amplifier. (The FM tuner section works great too!

 

[Dan H]

Quote:

was just wondering that if were to get one of these tube recievers like the Fisher 400, would it be the same as getting a dedicated tube headphone amp?

The Fisher 400 is a sweet receiver. My experience is with the Fisher 500C. IMO this receiver is better than some tube headphone amps. The 500C with the Golden Synchrode FM section are thought to be best that Fisher made, according to AA. I’m listening to one now.
The 800's have what is perhaps the best AM tube section of all time. At the time it came out stereo was transmitted one on AM the other on FM so this receiver has an outstanding AM tuner!

 

[rarsen]

Locally available are the Marantz 2220, 2226 and 2230 receivers. My headphones are Senn HD 580, are any of the listed receivers worth it as a mid level headphone amplifier or should I await for others like Fisher, etc. Using the Headroom list of equipments as a reference, to what model could these Marantz possibly compare with?

Will eventually buy a Headroom amp but looking as a transition stage the Vintage Amp option. Comments greatly appreciated on the Vintage Amps subject, and very knowlegable participants.

Thanks.

 

[FCJ]

Quote:

Originally posted by rarsen Locally available are the Marantz 2220, 2226 and 2230 receivers. My headphones are Senn HD 580, are any of the listed receivers worth it as a mid level headphone amplifier or should I await for others like Fisher, etc. Using the Headroom list of equipments as a reference, to what model could these Marantz possibly compare with? Will eventually buy a Headroom amp but looking as a transition stage the Vintage Amp option. Comments greatly appreciated on the Vintage Amps subject, and very knowlegable participants. Thanks.

I have the Marantz 2226 that I use primarily with the AKG K-1000s and occasionally with the Senn 600s. I also have a Corda HA-1. I find the Marantz compares very favorably with the Corda. It may not be as detailed, but it's sweet and musical. While I prefer the Marantz with the AKGs, I could live with only the Senn 600/Marantz combo if I had to. Recommended.

 

[mkmelt]

I think any of these would be a great choice for a second system (bedroom or home office) stereo receiver for listening through speakers, or for headphone use with a really good set of headphones such as the upper end of the Grado series or the Sennheiser 580 or 600 or even the AKG K1000s (as has already been confirmed by other in this thread, even a relatively modest powered Marantz receiver such as the 2226 can power these just fine).

If you listen to FM, check out the tuner specifications for these models and you will find they are very similar, but as you go up the line there are improvements in these specs. These differences may not be not audible, and all will require an FM alignment (at a cost of perhaps $50) for receiver to sound their best when listening to the radio.

As for the amplifier sections, there are some differences among the various 2200 series receivers but these have more to do with driving loudspeakers than headphones. Remember, by selecting a vintage receiver such as one of the Marantz units to be your primary headphone amplifier, you are using this technology in a way that is somewhat different than for it's original purpose.

Back when these were being sold, no one had ever heard of a dedicated headphone amplifier except maybe for use inside a recording studio. Certainly, a receiver that sold retail for $400 or $500 (in today's dollars that would be around $2,000) was intended to be the center of a home stereo entertainment system, and a rather good one at that, not just a high-end component for driving headphones.

I believe that the headphone amplifier stage on these receivers received the same attention to detail as the other parts of these receivers. The reason that these older components stand the test of time is because they used good engineering, with circuitry that contained only what was needed without any frills, and used the best available parts where this mattered (i.e. affected the sound quality or the reliability of the component), and were assembled and adjusted by skilled technicians.

Try lifting a vintage Marantz receiver and you will discover that the chassis weighs something more than 30 pounds, and a much as 50 pounds, due primarily to the huge transformers and heat sinks used in the power supply and amplifer section. I believe that these power supplies were fairly simple by today's standards, but their massive transformers and large capacity filter caps made for a very reliable and stable power source, which greatly contributes to the overall sound of the amplifier.

A nice example of a vintage Marantz receiver in working condition can still be had for between $50 and $150 for models such as the 2215, 2220, 2226, and 2230, amd 2235. My personal choice would be for one with a separate midrange tone control in addition to bass and treble controls, and a separate signal strength meter and tuning meter for the tuner. The model 2230 is probably the most common of the Marantz receivers in the under 50 watt power range. But if headphones were my primary application, I would not be too concerned if I was able to pick up a model 2220 or even a 2215 if the price was right. Anything under $50 is an absolute steal, and $75 to $100 still is a great deal compared to what a Corda HA-1 or an ASL OTL costs new today.