Lusting over vintage Marantz - advice?

drummer86

Not sure if this belongs in the 2-channel or electronics forums.


I've been lusting over a vintage Marantz receiver for quite some time now. I'm in no hurry to make any purchases but would like to gather some secondhand experience. I in no way need any of the monster Marantz receivers that go for several hundred dollars and up but would be completely happy with a smaller unit like a 1030 or 2216. Eventually I would like to build a nice little 2-channel system around this (I hear vintage Polks go well with these receivers).

From your experience are they any models to look for or stay away from? I'm looking to spend very little on this and can wait as long as I have to to find something around $100-150. I'll take as much info as you have time to give me. Any other advice and input would also be appreciated.

mhardy6647

I think they are overpriced on the used/vintage market relative to their sonic qualities. I find the 22xx Marantzes by and large to be grainy and "solid-state-y" sounding. They do have a certain Rococo, more is more flair to their cosmetics, though - which as far as I am concerned is what gives 'em their resale value.

I prefer the sound of all the other massmarket Japanese hardware of the era (even Technics) to the Superscope-era Marantz products, FWIW.

mhardy6647

The Generation of Marantzes to own at least once in one's life is the one this amp belongs to:

jon s

I owned a number of Marantz receivers during the '70s. I found the Marantz to be average in sonic qualities, I actually preferred some Sony and Pioneer units over the Marantz. I think that owners of the older Marantz receivers have to upgrade their power caps as they tended to leak with age.

cnh

Honestly, I have not heard the lower power Marantz yet? But, to me, the 2245, 2265, and 2275 sound pretty much alike. I don't know what Marantz fanboys are talking about when they say they can hear a difference here?

That said, I do not find these Marantz grainy, but then again, my ears are a tad older the mhardy's (hear all kind of things coming from them, at times-high pitched sounds, subsonic rumbling, ringing, depending on what I ate or how much sleep I got the night before), lol This is not to say there are not other receivers I prefer, like my HK 430, 730 (Pioneer SX-838 and Yamaha CR-800), etc. If anything, the Marantz sound is a bit rolled off on the top making it a good match for cheap CDPs? You won't hear anything "harsh" with a sub $10 used CDP on a Marantz--don't have to worry about DACs or jitter or...(they are a cheap solution for digital glare).

I have a set of KLH 17s that I prefer on other vintage receivers. They don't sync up well with Marantz IMO. But for some unknown reason, I find my Monitor 10As love the 2265. Maybe it's a combination of sound signature and power? Maybe not. But the 10s just seem to like that unit for whatever reasons. I should put my 5s and 7s on it to see what they sound like. Because I do believe that vintage Monitors have some weird synergy with these Marantz units?

cnh

mhardy6647

DSkip wrote: »

Shhhh!

Have you had the opportunity to own some of those tubed pieces?

No, but I got to restore that one for someone :-) The 8B is a superb amplifier.

cnh

DSkip wrote: »

Shhhh!

Have you had the opportunity to own some of those tubed pieces?

I'm pretty sure that is in the permanent fold, or one like it? As those early tube Marantz are a favorite of true collectors. I haven't heard one myself, but I have no doubt that it's a very very nice piece!

cnh

drummer86

So the consensus so far is that I should be looking at Pioneers, Yammys, and Sonys because the Marantz's are a tad overpriced despite their pretty looks. Am I getting that right? I'll also take suggestions at good models to look at in other brands. Personal experience accounts are always appreciated!

sucks2beme

One word. Sansui.
not as pretty as the Marantz, but sounds better.

ambiophonics

I have a vintage Sansui AU-999 and a Marantz 2245. Similar output power, I always preferred the sound of the Sansui, still warm but it seemed more accurate and imaged better than the Marantz.

mhardy6647

I wouldn't call the Superscope-era Marantz receivers "a tad overpriced" - compare 'em to any of the other massmarket Japanese hardware of the same era on eBAY and see what you think...

Sansui (the better ones, at least), Luxman and Yamaha will get you into sound quality that's still "good" by modern standards (i.e, it's good, period). Pioneer's got that solid-state sheen - sounds OK and certainly cheap enough on the used market... but not something I'd care to listen to often.

That said... I will admit that I do have a couple of Pioneers, including one of the big silver monstrosities, though ;-)


SX1050 by mhardy6647, on Flickr

(heck, I've got a few Marantzes, too... but nothing that would impress anyone familiar with the marque)

Kenwoods are kind of hit and miss - some are excellent; their tuners were generally very good performers and capable of good sound, too, with some judicious tweaking.

Bear in mind that this stuff is all on the order of four decades old and needs some rehab to sound as it should - at the very least, the myriad electrolytic capacitors in the signal path should really be replaced. Modern electrolytics really are better...

nooshinjohn

sucks2beme wrote: »

One word. Sansui.
not as pretty as the Marantz, but sounds better.

This... If you can stretch it, I would be looking for an AU11000 or 22000 integrated. I still wish I could get my AU22000 back, but at the time money was more important.

Polkie2009

Nice pic mhardy! I remember the early 70's Marantz receivers were__ more expensive than the Pioneers, Technics and Sony's back then. Maybe even more than the Sansuis ? Didn't those early Marantz receivers have a gold tone to their front panel and the background of the tuner dial was black and the radio stations on the dial lit up with a blue color??? Man were they purty.

mhardy6647

Yes some of the pre "B" Marantzes had champagne panels and engraved nomenclature on 'em - they were a whole notch better built than the "B" versions, too... a 2215 (unsuffixed) once passed through the basement - but it was pretty junked out and I never had the nerve to even smoke-test it...


2215ambient by mhardy6647, on Flickr

2215 innards by mhardy6647, on Flickr

(I apologize that the tungsten-lit photo fails to convey the ever-so-slightly goldish 'champagne' tint of this receiver)



In terms of Sansuis - the AU-717, which isn't all that crazily expensive on the current market, is a very fine (and very nice looking, too) amplifier. I really, really wouldn't mind having one... ;-)

mhardy6647

but I don't need another TU-717 ;-)

EDIT: plus, Arlington, TX is a long ways away... Arlington, MA: OK Arlington, VA: maybe. Arlington, TX: not so much

;-)

drummer86

mhardy6647 wrote: »

Bear in mind that this stuff is all on the order of four decades old and needs some rehab to sound as it should - at the very least, the myriad electrolytic capacitors in the signal path should really be replaced. Modern electrolytics really are better...

I'd feel comfortable swapping out a few capacitors and cleaning the guts up a little bit if need be. Not looking for a total fixer upper though.

Nightfall

I am certainly biased but I love my Yamaha CA-1010.

CA-1010 and CA-2010 are excellent examples. Class A until 18 watts and automatically switches when pushed from 18 watts to 120 @ 4 ohms on the 1010 with the 2010 being slightly more powerful. Very good phono stage too, accepts MC or MM. Exceptional sound quality and exceptional build quality.

I haven't heard the CR series receivers but I'd imagine they're good as well.

lanchile

drummer86 wrote: »

I'd feel comfortable swapping out a few capacitors and cleaning the guts up a little bit if need be. Not looking for a total fixer upper though.

I had a Marantz 2238B and I can say only good things about this beast, They were build to last not like the new plastic toys that you find in Best buys with all those craps of DSP and surround gadgets.

mhardy6647

Plenty of new stuff is built to last, too... viz. the current, top end Yamaha integrated amplifiers. The A-S2000 is top o'their current heap. Looks like something that would be worth a listen ;-)

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=502056

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/tas-cedia-2012-show-report-audio-electronics-sources-part-2/


http://media.tas.zeitpress.com/articles/images/Yamaha_A-S2000.jpg

EDIT: Actually the A-S3000 is the top of the heap... see (big) photos at: http://www.yamaha.com/YECDealerMedia/AD_amp_tune.htm

Yes the CA-2010 and CA-1010 and their other top-end 1970s (and even early 1980s) Yamaha integrate amp brethren were nice pieces.



DSC_8057 by mhardy6647, on Flickr

My comment about refreshing capacitors (at least) applies - as a 'best practice' - to all 1970s-era electronics... time takes its toll. A vintage, "as found" amplifier or receiver may sound fine, but it will not be at its best now, 35-plus years later, without a few nips and tucks ;-)

lanchile

it is funny how they put the Yamaha amplifier in a Plexiglass . they show the guts and they are not so "wow"... if they wanted to "show off" this integrated amplifier's guts, they should have used double power supply (Real dual mono) and use of toroidal transformers, also check those "cheap" trimers and I hope those big cans caps are low ESR caps. I do not find anything that I can say "wow".... I would choose a Bryston B60 instead.

gudnoyez

http://quadcities.craigslist.org/ele/4125575339.html

this 2270 is overpriced for its condition, and is a work in progress, I've heard this model before with some Marantz speakers my cousin had, nice unit if you could find one in better shape. I doubt this one will be selling anytime soon.

cnh

Actually $175 for a 2270 even in that condition is not bad considering what you'd pay on ebay ($350+)!
Like mhardy pointed out above, these pieces are overpriced and command top dollar for whatever reasons!

cnh

mhardy6647

That's what I was thinking... although the damage on that particular example looks as though it may have been sustained after being tossed into a dumpster...

The cosmetics just get some folks' juices a-churnin'... ;-)


GMMcatalog by mhardy6647, on Flickr

2600 by mhardy6647, on Flickr

brgman

What about the Yammy M-80 and C-80?
Thoughts on this amp/pre combo?
A local has them for sale in very nice condition.

sucks2beme

I've still got a Sansui in the closet. I cleared out all the marantz receivers.
I had both a Marantz integrated and a Sansui 8080 back in the 70's.
The second go around I had both a Marantz quad and a stereo unit.
The current sansui made me remember the classic house sound Sansui had.

audiocr381ve

I don't have a ton of experience with vintage receivers but my recapped Marantz 2245 was absolutely fantastic. Loved the thing to death.

boston1450

Attachment not found.You will not be disappointed if your wanting a Marantz. I just got 2216b for 60.00 & sounds WONDERFUL

mhardy6647

Sam Sui :-)


Sansui 5000A front by mhardy6647, on Flickr


SansuiTA500f by mhardy6647, on Flickr


DSC_6956_zps997c022a by mhardy6647, on Flickr

Mikey081057

2252b

boston1450

Attachment not found.2252b-5025b-6300tt-Monitor 7b on tilt stands

Mr. Bubbles

I believe most would be satisfied with vintage Marantz gear. it does indeed have a signature sound as many people describe. I thought that was a bunch of BS until i started going through a lot of vintage gear several years back. i would find a beautiful Yammy, or Sweet pioneer. A nice sansui, etc. None of them sounded like the marantz. not that they didn't sound good. if i had not heard the marantz i wouldn't know the difference. But i had heard it as that was my gear as a teenager; luckily found at local pawnshops.

They do well with a lot of speakers and other gear but when i found SDA, they didn't seem to really go as well with that as Adcoms and others. If you want a cool vintage receiver, its hard to beat the marantz/ superscope gear. Though I historically don't use or keep many receivers (integrateds and separates are more to my liking) I have compared many over the years, The marantz sounded great to me. The yamahas are exceptionally beautiful and clean looking, however they sounded lacking and flat to me with little to no life. they go quickly when i run across them. The Pioneers have some some of the very coolest looking stuff with their receivers as well as separates. They sound like most other gear of that era; good but nothing special. i do keep a few Pioneer separates simply because they look bad ****. I found much the same with most of the sansui gear. Just a little cleaner than most of the Pioneer stuff. I've dumped macintosh gear to keep the marantz. Now that is a brand that sounds grainey to my ears. i have not heard their tube gear though. carver has a strong following but leaves something to be desired by my ears, at least for 2 ch listening. I keep going back to marantz for all but the most demanding listening. Good luck with whatever you choose, but i think Marantz is a good choice. In the end it is your individual ears that should make the decision.