Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Marantz Receivers and Amps (Read 13566 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Marantz Receivers and Amps

I kinda like the old retro look of these things.  For a basic amp, or maybe even just a headphone amp, are they any good?  How does that old techmology hold up?

Here's a good example of what I'm looking at. Marantz 1122 amp.
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #1 –
They are still highly regarded today.  See if you can find one from 22xx series.  I have several and they all sound fabulous.  They can get expensive as their are people out there who collect them.  I just got a 2275 at the Salvation Army for $25.  It works perfectly.

John

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #2 –
Quote from: indybrett,Jan 6 2006, 02:12 AM

I kinda like the old retro look of these things.  For a basic amp, or maybe even just a headphone amp, are they any good?  How does that old techmology hold up?

To noisy i bet. They had a real SNR about 70dB these days if i remember right.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #3 –
SNR and harmonic distortion was what I thought might be the issues.
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #4 –
I loved my old 70s Marantz. Sounded great. I gave it to a friend instead of fixing the tape output once that went kaput. But I'd definitely get one again for the right price.

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #5 –
Quote
To noisy i bet. They had a real SNR about 70dB these days if i remember right.

Is that s/n number from some special knowledge or just a guess.  Many old amps have as good or better numbers than equipment being sold today.

But lets face it, there is more to a good amp than a clean oscope trace and a good marketing department.  Listen to the amp, if YOU like it than buy it.  Don't get fooled by #'s.

I have a amp that has the worst #'s on paper.  built in the early 60's by a then well respected fisher company.  Somtimes it sounds so good I want to cry, I love that amp and I refuse to let any s/n or thd spec force me to part with it.

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #6 –
Quote
To noisy i bet. They had a real SNR about 70dB these days if i remember right.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=354940"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I doubt that - I have a Technics from 1981 with S/NR of about 100dB and Marantz were probably no worse. Don't imagine that things have improved dramatically since those days, they haven't. It's been known for many years how to make low-noise amps! You might be referring to the phono input, however, where poorer S/N was to be expected, mainly because cartridges are never *that* good.

BeerCan's advice is still good anyway: if it sounds good to you, the numbers don't matter.

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #7 –
Quote
Quote
To noisy i bet. They had a real SNR about 70dB these days if i remember right.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=354940"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I doubt that - I have a Technics from 1981 with S/NR of about 100dB and Marantz were probably no worse. Don't imagine that things have improved dramatically since those days, they haven't. It's been known for many years how to make low-noise amps! You might be referring to the phono input, however, where poorer S/N was to be expected, mainly because cartridges are never *that* good.

BeerCan's advice is still good anyway: if it sounds good to you, the numbers don't matter.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=355016"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hmm.. My father had these days a big Marantz Receiver and i don´t know the number anymore. These days i spent all my money i got for a NAD3030 and it was for sure not that noisy. You are absolutely right about the phono stages. The NADs were very popular these days for silent ones btw.. Man did i love this baby...
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #8 –
Thanks for all the replies.  I am leaning towards picking up one of these.  Heck, they are pretty cheap.  I guess the best thing for me to do is see if I can find the spec's for some of these amps online somewhere.  Anybody know of a good place.  I found this.
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #9 –
I am a pioneer man myself when it comes to SS amps.  http://www.silverpioneer.netfirms.com/

I was looking at ebay and I saw this (no affiliation)
http://cgi.ebay.com/Pioneer-SA-8800-Integr...1QQcmdZViewItem

Not to shabby  very similar to my sa-9800 which I can attest sounds awesome.  And the numbers look good also  96dB on the phono,  110 dB on the tape and aux sections and .005% THD.  The 7800 on ebay might be a good deal also.

One thing about vintage equipment I would like to suggest.  Unless you are pretty good inside the amp I would shy away from ebay.  Somtimes these amps sit for years and the electrolytics dry out and that leads to all sorts of issues.  Of course there are some sellers that rebuild the amps and those are fine (vp_stereo is a good seller).  Of course if the price is right I would snatch it.  Also the local goodwill and salvation army are a good source of cheap vintage equipment.  (got my Altecs for $40 )

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #10 –
I used to work as bench tech for Alpine/Luxman electronics, but that was about 15 years ago.  Don't know if I could still follow a signal path with a scope, lol.
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #11 –
Quote
I used to work as bench tech for Alpine/Luxman electronics, but that was about 15 years ago.  Don't know if I could still follow a signal path with a scope, lol.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=355058"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It will come back  .  Luxman huh.  I was so pissed when they left the US market, I loved their stuff.  I have a luxman r-115 now that I use with my tv setup.  Nice receiver even if it is black

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #12 –
Some of that Pioneer stuff looks pretty nice too. So nice in fact, I just bid on a Pioneer SA-7800 amp
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #13 –
One of the more common problems with gear of that vintage is things like switches and volume controls wearing out.  The switches are often custom and may be hard to find.

I have an old marantz I have used in a variety of setups, either for a straight stereo, or if I need an extra pair of channels for HT.

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #14 –
Another thing to consider (though a pretty minor point) is that old amps/receivers may have dusty pots/switches, which causes static when such a control is used. Luckily, they are pretty easy to take care of.

Boy, nothing says "childhood" to me like a chrome-finished, 1970's receiver with backlit dials and twin VU meters 

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #15 –
Quote
Boy, nothing says "childhood" to me like a chrome-finished, 1970's receiver with backlit dials and twin VU meters 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=355160"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you may be on to something there ;-)
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #16 –
Quote
Quote
To noisy i bet. They had a real SNR about 70dB these days if i remember right.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=354940"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I doubt that - I have a Technics from 1981 with S/NR of about 100dB and Marantz were probably no worse. Don't imagine that things have improved dramatically since those days, they haven't. It's been known for many years how to make low-noise amps! You might be referring to the phono input, however, where poorer S/N was to be expected, mainly because cartridges are never *that* good.

BeerCan's advice is still good anyway: if it sounds good to you, the numbers don't matter.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=355016"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Found the spec for this amp, for anyone that's interested:

Direct-coupled class A amp 2x40W (both channels driven)
THD @ rated power 0.007% (8 Ohms)
      @ 50mW 0.08% (4 Ohms)
Intermodulation distortion 0.007% 60Hz:7kHz 4:1 SMPTE (8 Ohms)
Power bandwidth (both channels driven) 5Hz-30kHz (3dB)
Damping factor (8 Ohms) 40
S/N 100dB (IHF A-weighted) Tape/Tuner/Aux
        82dB (IHF A-weighted) Phono
Freq. Response 2Hz-100kHz (-3dB) 20Hz-20kHz (0 dB)
Channel separation 55dB @1kHz

Oh, and it sounds sweet still :-))

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #17 –
Which amp are those specs for?
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #18 –
Quote
I kinda like the old retro look of these things.  For a basic amp, or maybe even just a headphone amp, are they any good?  How does that old techmology hold up?

Here's a good example of what I'm looking at. Marantz 1122 amp.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=354932"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Of course they vary. I woudn't reccomend them for use with headphones. I had a Marantz 1060 fairly recently. With headphones it was not good; there was a noise floor and nothing to make up for that really. The power amp section is not great either. But when I used it a preamp from my record player there was some real magic. You can get info on these amps at the audio asylum.

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #19 –
Holy CRAP! I'm sorry I didn't get to this thread sooner!

In my opinion, you can't even come close to price/performance in getting a vintage Marantz. They sound incredible, and have more firepower than you'll ever know what to do with. Granted, they're old, but the most common problems people have with them (burned out lights, dirty controls) can be fixed by most people (replacement light bulbs, can of compressed air.)

If you're seriously thinking about a vintage Marantz, check out Classic-Audio.com. The owner has assembled a huge database of nearly every vintage unit produced (and a few that weren't!).

Check out this power comparison (from classic-audio):

Quote
Because 35 watts/channel as specified by Marantz in the 1970's meant...

    "   The unit can deliver 35 watts into 8 ohms for one hour, from all channels at the same time, with no significant change in distortion, or other specifications, at any time during, or after, the test hour."

...while 100 watts/channel today (for instance, in my JVC surround system) means...

    "   The unit can deliver 100 watts for a fraction of a second, in one channel only, if the other channels aren't running and nothing else high energy has happened to drain the power supply of stored energy in the last few seconds."

In fact, my JVC 5-channel Dolby surround receiver claims 500 watts RMS, but the power consumption label on the back panel tells the story:

320 Watts

If my JVC receiver was 100% efficient, meaning that every bit of power it took from the wall was delivered to the speakers as audio power (which it isn't), that'd give you only 64 watts a channel, about 2/3rds of the claimed power rating (which is 100 watts per channel, remember, 500 delivered as 100 per each of the five channels.)

But since the receiver can only (at best) convert about 50% of the available energy to the speakers, and the available energy is what is left over after the heat is generated (did I mention that this model JVC runs almost too hot to touch on top, even when making no sound at all?) and the watts that go to lighting the panel and powering all of the other circuitry are accounted for, the system can perhaps, when brand new, on a good day, generate 32 watts a channel continuously with all the channels going, which is pretty sorry compared to the claimed 100 watt per channel rating. That is less power per channel than an old 2235 receiver. Shocking, eh?

Turning it around, because of the way that the units were rated in the 1970's, that classic 2235 Marantz receiver, rated at 35 watts a channel, can dependably produce much more than 35 watts in both channels at the same time for a minute or two (far longer than the peaks in a modern receiver.) An honest rating for use with music for the power amplifiers of an older Marantz is generally in the range of 120% of rated power or even higher.

These ratings were instituted because of many false claims for power output that were being made using many different types of power measurement and general baloney at that time. IHF, RMS, Peak, Peak Music Power, Average, etc. RMS is what was settled on, and it's still widely used today, but the one hour rating was dropped some time back.

Interestingly, the situation that caused the RMS for one hour ratings to be made standard is now recurring - as I mentioned above, my JVC's ratings are pretty obviously designed to deceive the consumer to an extreme degree. Certainly there is no way that they can claim that those ratings paint an accurate picture of the amount of power the receiver can actually deliver in real world conditions - loud music and cinema surround takes a lot of power, in a lot of channels. Try listening to Jurassic Park... wait till the Tyrannosaur walks up behind you, or there is something exciting going on. Those 32 watts are pretty puny...

JVC isn't alone in this, however, many manufacturers you might think would be more honest in their claims are just as deceitful. For instance, my Sony car stereo suffers from the same kind of exaggeration: Right on the front it claims a very high wattage, but reading the manual, it turns out that the actual RMS power is far, far less than the front panel claims. I guess it's time for someone to step in again and slap these people around.

To the relatively straightforward power issue, you can add the fact that the design of the audio and RF circuitry in a Marantz is absolutely top-notch, and you can hear that in the character of what little distortion there is, in the way the bass, midrange and treble controls (and loudness contour and filters) affect the signals, in the way the FM signals come out sweet and clean, and so on. As an engineer, I really don't like to drop into using descriptive terms meant for food or lovemaking and so on for sound, but you know, when you A:B a Marantz against other units that are supposedly equivalent, the bottom line is it sounds better, and obviously so.


In the interest of full disclosure, I own a 1978 Marantz 2285b black-faced edition, which were only manufactured in Europe. Meet Mary:

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #20 –
That does look pretty sweet.  The Rio jacked in is a very nice touch.  Wish there was a kit like that for my iRiver.
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #21 –
Quote
That does look pretty sweet.  The Rio jacked in is a very nice touch.  Wish there was a kit like that for my iRiver.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=355335"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

use a 1/8" to rca adapter.  you can get them at radioshack for about 4 dollars

You are gonna LOVE these vintage amps

If you ask me this is the best Marantz ever made,  in fact one of the best amps ever made by anyone


Here is one of my babies, both clothed and naked lol

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #22 –
That Pioneer amp looks SWEET! Of course, I seem to have a chrome/brushed aluminum fetish; you should see my apartment 
 

Marantz Receivers and Amps

Reply #23 –
Quote
Which amp are those specs for?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=355307"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Technics SU-V3, bought in very late 1981. It has neat things like separate record and input selectors so you can record off the radio whilst listening to a CD, for instance. It also features overload and DC input-bias protection - the protection circuit operates a relay in the output so it disconnects the speakers if needed and it won't connect them until the output has no DC (also stops any thumps when switching on).

The whole thing is very neatly made and well thought out - there's no mass of internal wiring and the selector switches are physically at the back, near the sockets, for short signal paths. They're remote-controlled from the front selectors with a kind of flat cable rack-and-pinion arrangement. If you want pics I can do some...it's still in daily use! Power consumption is a rather hefty 460W but hey...