Definately Marantz!!

Lately I have been acquiring non-marantz gear out of curiousity to see what I was missing out on. I recently got a Kenwood KR-9400 and a Pioneer SX-1050. Both are in great shape and outclass my most powerfull Marantz which is a 2270.

Anyhow, the Marantz has been out of rotation for a few months now, so today I put it back in (in place of the sx-1050) and wow!! Now, the speakers that I have hooked up are HPM-100's so you would think the edge would have gone to the Pioneer, but no. To me, the Pioneer has a clean sound, but it's just too bright for my taste. Maybe it just doesn't pair well with the HPM's as strange as that sounds.

Regardless, when I listen to the Marantz again, it's like the midrange came back!! Both the Pioneer and the Kenny have a nice sound, but I really miss the depth in the midrange with my Marantz.

So today it was confirmed that I am DEFINATELY a marantzfan, and the next receiver I am buying is a big Marantz, either a 2385 or 2330B depending on that I can find. Untill then, the 2270 will remain at the helm in my rig!:yes:
 
Interesting result. I thought the SX-1050 / HPM-100 combo would do better as they are Pioneer family. The bass heavy 2385 sounds like a Pioneer, it is not my favorite Marantz.
 
SoCal Sam said:
Interesting result. I thought the SX-1050 / HPM-100 combo would do better as they are Pioneer family. The bass heavy 2385 sounds like a Pioneer, it is not my favorite Marantz.

All I have heard in Marantz receivers are 2215, 2230, 2245 and 2270. I just figured that the 2385 would have the same sound...Maybe not...Maybe a 2285b I know that one has a large following. I was just leaning towards a 2330b because of the fact that they go for about as much as a 2285b and their in a higher watt class. But in the end, it is all about the sound, not the watts.
 
I have a 2245 and it is nice and warm but not crisp in the highs or particularly accurate in bass reproduction. IMO, these qualities effectively compliment the HPM-100's bass heaviness and brightness.

Don't get me wrong, the 2385 is a fine receiver. It's just that I have a 2500 to compare it to and they definitely sound different. Condition has a lot to do with it as well. My 2500 has been tech tuned-up while my 2385 has not.
 
I like the sound of my Marantz' as well, however I am curious does anyone have a Marantz 18 or 19? What is the sound like? I've flirted with the idea of getting a completed restored 18 in the future.
 
marantzfan said:
All I have heard in Marantz receivers are 2215, 2230, 2245 and 2270. I just figured that the 2385 would have the same sound...Maybe not...Maybe a 2285b I know that one has a large following. I was just leaning towards a 2330b because of the fact that they go for about as much as a 2285b and their in a higher watt class. But in the end, it is all about the sound, not the watts.

I have a 2385 and the sound (to me) is amazing. I had (and sold) two 2500 receivers (didn't think the 2500 sounded so good). As you can see (below) I also have other Marantz gear and I'm waiting for my recently aquired 300dc amp to be fixed-up by an AK member so I can swap it with the 170dc, which is powering my 2130 tuner and 3650 preamp. Although that combo sounds great I can't wait to listen to it when the 300dc is part of the set. But back to 2385, it has a great sound and if you like to crank it up, it has the power for it.

Yeah!!!, Definitelly Marantz...:banana: :banana: :banana:
 
Bolly,

Thanks for the link, that is a nice 18 you've got there! That wood case makes it look really cool.
 
SoCal Sam said:
I have a 2245 and it is nice and warm but not crisp in the highs or particularly accurate in bass reproduction. IMO, these qualities effectively compliment the HPM-100's bass heaviness and brightness.

Don't get me wrong, the 2385 is a fine receiver. It's just that I have a 2500 to compare it to and they definitely sound different. Condition has a lot to do with it as well. My 2500 has been tech tuned-up while my 2385 has not.

I think you nailed it... To me when I paired the 2270 with the HPM's the sound was much fuller. Maybe the sx-1050 would sound better paired with a different type of speaker, I don't know. But what I do know, is that I truly love the Marantz sound, now I just need to find the right Receiver/Speaker combo give me what I'm looking for. Maybe HD880's with a 2385/2330b/2285b?? Don't know, but I sure cant afford to buy all three to find out.:scratch2:
 
thisOne said:
I have a 2385 and the sound (to me) is amazing. I had (and sold) two 2500 receivers (didn't think the 2500 sounded so good). As you can see (below) I also have other Marantz gear and I'm waiting for my recently aquired 300dc amp to be fixed-up by an AK member so I can swap it with the 170dc, which is powering my 2130 tuner and 3650 preamp. Although that combo sounds great I can't wait to listen to it when the 300dc is part of the set. But back to 2385, it has a great sound and if you like to crank it up, it has the power for it.

Yeah!!!, Definitelly Marantz...:banana: :banana: :banana:
The 2385 has a lot in common with the 2500 but it is a far simpler design and I think it benefits from that. For example, the tuner in my 2385 is much better than the 2500. I wonder if the scope and amp tunnel somehow interfere with reception. Of course, separates rule the roost. The 300DC is an awesome amp.
 
SoCal Sam said:
The 2385 has a lot in common with the 2500 but it is a far simpler design and I think it benefits from that. For example, the tuner in my 2385 is much better than the 2500. I wonder if the scope and amp tunnel somehow interfere with reception. Of course, separates rule the roost. The 300DC is an awesome amp.

Well, aside from the fact that that I never found the sound of the 2500 to be "that Marantz sound" and I had both of my units serviced by a qualified tech, and I had a 2285b to compare them to, what I really did not care for in the 2500 is the fan. It just drove me nutz that it made this barely perceptible noise with the volume down, and even though I could not hear it with the volume up, it was there, and that was enough for me to get rid of them both.

They are big and heavy beasts, though (the 2500s). Look good, too! But in the end I find the 2385 to be just so much nicer looking. And that's the thing about Marantz, the face plate design is just so much more elegant (to me) than other manufacturer's units, which have the knobs and controls so seemingly haphazardly arranged. In the end, and for me, it has to not only sound good but look good, too.
 
marantzfan said:
Regardless, when I listen to the Marantz again, it's like the midrange came back!! Both the Pioneer and the Kenny have a nice sound, but I really miss the depth in the midrange with my Marantz.


That's the same way I see or hear it. My SX-980 sounds nice and looks better but does sound a little bright compared to the Marantz which has a richer sound. But that's just my opinion.
 
Marantzfan, it is true, the 2270 is very HARD to outsound.

The only receivers I have enjoyed more than the 2270 and 2265B are my Sansui stuff.

They offer a more clear version of the marantz sound. You might look for a Sansui 8080/DB or higher. :)


You need dim speakers for the Pioneers, I run some large Advents on my sx-1250 and the sound is awesome. I listen to classical and opera on that system mainly.
 
alexkerhead said:
Marantzfan, it is true, the 2270 is very HARD to outsound.

The only receivers I have enjoyed more than the 2270 and 2265B are my Sansui stuff.

They offer a more clear version of the marantz sound. You might look for a Sansui 8080/DB or higher. :)


You need dim speakers for the Pioneers, I run some large Advents on my sx-1250 and the sound is awesome. I listen to classical and opera on that system mainly.

Yeah, you're right...So, beleive it or not, I think I will leave the HPM's with the Marantz for now and see if I can find the right speakers for the sx-1050 and kr-9400.....

The only bad thing is now I REALLY want a big Marantz....:yes:
 
A good match for Pioneers are East coast speakers that have a dim sound, as opposed to bright for the West coast and Japanese speakers.

Large Advents come to mind, as well as ARs and such.
 
thisOne said:
Well, aside from the fact that that I never found the sound of the 2500 to be "that Marantz sound" and I had both of my units serviced by a qualified tech, and I had a 2285b to compare them to, what I really did not care for in the 2500 is the fan. It just drove me nutz that it made this barely perceptible noise with the volume down, and even though I could not hear it with the volume up, it was there, and that was enough for me to get rid of them both.

They are big and heavy beasts, though (the 2500s). Look good, too! But in the end I find the 2385 to be just so much nicer looking. And that's the thing about Marantz, the face plate design is just so much more elegant (to me) than other manufacturer's units, which have the knobs and controls so seemingly haphazardly arranged. In the end, and for me, it has to not only sound good but look good, too.
My experience is the 2500 has the smooth Marantz sound while the 2385 is bass heavy and Pioneer like. Opposite of your preference but that is part of the fun. You have the "holy grail" 2285B, which I do not. Some say the 2285B has the best balance of all.

You know, the fan has never bothered me. It is usually pointed towards the wall, muffled by my cabinet and it becomes inaudible with the slightest volume. What I find problematic is there is an electric motor with its own power needs. I'm a believer that if it is not necessay to make good sound, get rid of it. That includes tone controls, loudness buttons, and the like and I suppose the pretty scope falls into this category.

While I agree all silver dialed Marantz's are pretty, I'd have to rate the 2500 looks over the 2385. At least the scope is entertaining in a way meters can never be. And the 2385 lacks power meters so you can't observe your music's peaks.
 
alexkerhead said:
You need dim speakers for the Pioneers, I run some large Advents on my sx-1250 and the sound is awesome. I listen to classical and opera on that system mainly.
Very interesting you think Pioneers need dim speakers when the the HPM line have that Japanese / West coast brightness. Hard to believe Pioneer didn't match speakers with receivers. I've had the SX-1250 and 1980 with HPM-100's and thought them to be very nice. Oops, getting off topic...
 
SoCal Sam said:
Very interesting you think Pioneers need dim speakers when the the HPM line have that Japanese / West coast brightness. Hard to believe Pioneer didn't match speakers with receivers. I've had the SX-1250 and 1980 with HPM-100's and thought them to be very nice. Oops, getting off topic...
This may be why you don't rank the SX-1250 as high as the concept 16.5 and others.

All my Pioneer gear is bright. HPM-100s are mainly rock speakers, as are L100s, and sound great with ROCK mainly when using the bright receivers. However, I find the sound harsh and displeasing with classical and others I listen to.

My L100s sound great on my SX-1250 when I listen to rock music, like the doors, eagles, etc. But I don't much prefer the setup for other kinds of listening. But when I got my 9090DB, I realized the L100s can play all types of music awesomely, they just needed a warmer, but strong receiver to make them sing right.

In fact, when using my L100s with the SX-1250, I found it so bright, I had to adjust the tone controls more than i'd like to. It was so bright it hurt my ears upon high volume levels.


marantzfan, the SX-1050 is an awesome receiver, you just need the right synergy to complete the equation. :)

I wish you luck in your search for such synergy.
 
Back
Top Bottom