Marantz "warm", "Colored" sound not "True" "Clear" sound? What?

[jstang]

You're a funny man....

Please contact the admins and mondorators regarding baning me.... I would love to see you play that game... I think it might backfire on you...and be the end of you not me....

Oh wait, I'll contact them for you if you like....

Jk

If microphonics existed, yes. The concept of microphonics is nonexistant in solid state technology. That's why it's called "solid state". Stop spreading misinformation, please. It's hurting the less educated people. And no, it does not apply to electrolytic capacitors. Science has proven it over and over.

This should really be a bannable offense. AK needs cleaning up, big time.

 

[jstang]

The funny thing is that the capactive mircophonic affect is used in actual microphone design...

It's called a "condenser mircophone" Also known as a "capacitive microphone".... Condensor is what English majors call a synonym in the electronics field for capacitor...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/logi...re.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1032708


Ceramic and some films are commonly affected, but other types can be affected depending on the usage..and mechanical design.

Last point... I believe there was a fisher tube receiver on top of that JBL..... ( hint look at the avatar )

To that end....

http://www.wildlife-sound.org/equipment/newcomersguide/pip.html

Funny how the circuit for a Condensor mic has a capacitor in it...

Shall we call the moderators now?

jk

 

[Thomas53]

Some of this is logically a bit hard to follow, because there are so many other things to consider.

As another member here (I forget who) has, repeatedly, patiently, and correctly pointed out, what is the condition of the equipment, some possibly FORTY-plus years old, you are using? And this is true for EVERY link in the chain from the source; tuner, phono, tape deck, CD player, computer (of whatever type), through the amplification process to the speakers, and also may include the cables and connections. Lord knows there are plenty of opinions about speakers! You also must consider the condition of and the "quality", "accuracy", or what have you of the source media, if there is one. Then, there are the acoustics of the room.

If we could then make it such that we all had perfectly healthy functioning ears, then in the end we are still left with what virtually unlimited combinations of all of the above we each like.

The only comparisons that make any sense is to keep every thing else the same, hopefully all in good shape, and then compare different brands/models of receivers/amps, again hopefully all in good shape to each other. (Note some like different models or "periods", e.g. early 1970's vs. later 1970's of the same brand.) Now, if you change anything, but probably speakers are the main thing, do you still prefer the same receiver/amp?

OR, we can just forget all that, most of which makes a lot of sense no matter what brand you prefer, and say that X brand, model Y is the best . . .

Personally, I think it is kind of cool there was a Greatest Generation guy named Saul Marantz who started a company. Yeah, my receiver was made in Japan, but it seems to have been built pretty well. It has been restored, pretty well I hope, as have my speakers, and sounds good to me with most sources. It sounds better to me than anything I have had up to now, but I know I could put together a system of entirely different brands and it would sound good too.

Marilyn Monroe or Jane Russell? Ginger or Mary Anne? In the end all I am sure of is Jaclyn Smith was the prettiest Charlie's Angel!:yes:

Marilyn Monroe for sure! 2270 sounds best to me, everyone seems to forget that NO two individuals hear sound the same way and the mind can fool us as to what we think we hear.
Extensive testing was done recently to determine if digital hearing aids offered an advantage over analog, in repeated blind tests with a wide range of subjects, the test subjects thought that the digital aids were better than the analog when in fact they were listening to the same hardware, and that was in almost every case. As I keep saying over and over it only matters what sounds good to you and not what everyone else thinks it SHOULD sound like.

 

[JohnVF]

I lived on the South-Side of Chicago for 40 years and now live close enough to NYC to visit the clubs regularly. I played since I was in 4th grade, and continue to play live when I can, at over 60. LIVE music has been my life for the better part of 50 years.
In any HI-FI system you would want to hear the presence of the room acoustics as well as an accurate and detailed soundstage, not to mention an accurate representation of the transients in the sound level and the articulation of the individual instruments.
It's hard to get all that from a receiver; but for my money the Marantz Models 18, 19, 2245 and 2270 come closest to my very aggressively restored Model 500, 7T, and 20/20B than much of the Marantz receiver line or any Pioneer, Sansui, or Technics I've heard through the 70s.
I will, however, give a nod to the Yamaha B-2 Power Amp and the CT-7000 tuner. Excellent, but good luck finding replacement VFET transistors for your B-2.

I would love to have a Model 18 or 19. Those are some fine looking receivers. Any of this gear is capable of bringing the tunes, I just think its rare for gear to really disappear from the sound, to get out of the way. And the more something has a recognizable sound of its own, the less I'm happy with it because of that reason. But I've not heard the 18 or 19. They are increasingly rare.

 

[stish]

I continue to be amazed at the level of hostility that surfaces over subjective opinions. Personally. I have a passion for flea powered SET amps but would never second guess anyone's love of high powered solid state.

 

[Polarbear]

I would love to have a Model 18 or 19. Those are some fine looking receivers. Any of this gear is capable of bringing the tunes, I just think its rare for gear to really disappear from the sound, to get out of the way. And the more something has a recognizable sound of its own, the less I'm happy with it because of that reason. But I've not heard the 18 or 19. They are increasingly rare.

I understand your goal of removing the gear from the sound but I just don't get how one can say a certain piece of equipment is doing that?? How do you know what the original uncoloured sound really is? What are you comparing it to?

 

[jstang]

Yea tubes are no good either.... Unless they are Marantz tubes.....

 

[JohnVF]

I understand your goal of removing the gear from the sound but I just don't get how one can say a certain piece of equipment is doing that?? How do you know what the original uncoloured sound really is? What are you comparing it to?

Live sound, and also comparing one piece of gear to another. I sometimes use recordings that a friend did, simple two mic direct to hard-drive stereo recordings with no affectation of live unamplified music being performed.

Nothing sounds like live music but I do believe that some gear is a lot better at getting out of the way, at not being heard as part of the equation.

I'm not saying that this has to be everybody's goal. Chasing a specific flavor to a stereo is just as "correct". I don't know that there's a totally neutral sound in a stereo in room, but I'm aiming for at least a natural sound. If somebody is aiming for the Marantz sound or Sansui sound...that's there preference. But it seems to be logical to assume that if you can identify the sound of the brand-mark, that its leaving its mark somewhere. That can be good, or bad, depending on your opinion of it.

 

[patfont]

I continue to be amazed at the level of hostility that surfaces over subjective opinions. Personally. I have a passion for flea powered SET amps but would never second guess anyone's love of high powered solid state.

I have owned in the past Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, Marantz, and other excellent tube equipment. It became a love hate relationship with some of the amps I owned due to tube wear and biasing etc. Which is why I started in the direction of a Solid State Amp with a tube pre, which is a nice and reliable set up. I can understand your love of SET amps and as others have said not all are after the same sound. I value realistic vocals and a wide and deep soundstage with air and dimensionaliy. When I had owned very expensive equipment I would have laughed at someone mentioning a properly rebuilt marantz reciver as an alternative. I will say that from selling Marantz receivers new in the 70's they got alot of things that I like right. My current receiver with fresh caps and fresh films and rewired etc, etc is an amazing piece, and floors many that hear it for the first time. So to be able to be punching well above it's weight my Marantz receiver is a real bargain, I have not heard any thing close you need to spend 1K plus to do it. That is why I am passionate about Marantz, what a value, a 100.00 purchase from craigslist and then a self done rebuild. If anyone wants to tout, Yamaha, Sansui, etc etc please do it in the appropriate forum.

 

[PB_Audio]

Well if you look at my post about 3-4 years ago I didn't know a thing about vintage receivers and posted a question" If I was to buy a Marantz receiver what do you all recommend, well you all said the 2275. I guess I received bad info at the time. What do you mean by hotter' high-end?

An emphasis of the upper-mid~high frequencies. This sounds "good" in a quick audition... almost like you're getting more detail (do you think there was a method to their maddness). The down-side, though, if you listen for, let's say, the period of a live concert, for example, this upper-midrange, I call it 'sizzle' begins to annoy almost anybody. When you listen for 50~60 hours a week, it begins to stand out like a sour thumb.
As a salesman, back in the 70s, we auditioned anything the customer wanted to hear; but when there were no customers in the store, there was never any doubt what system was going to be playing, even if we could never agree on what artist's music to play.
Sorry, but I wasn't here 3-4 years ago. Given your particular preference for "tube" sound, you should not have been recommend a 2275, but rather a Model 18, 19, 2245 or 2270.
All is not lost, however, if you read Patfont's lengthy Capacitor Shootout thread, you will see where he recommends some rather pricey caps, beyond the wonderful ELNA Silmic II. Recap again with the good stuff and you will better enjoy your 2275. Of course, I'd recommend the same for a 2270; so don't expect your 2275 to turn into a 2270; but the improvement will be surprising, IMHO.
Many do not 'like' the sound of a 2270... of course, being a generation older, the 2245/2270 all need a quality refurb, in spite of the appearance of being fully functional, or being, as we often hear, in "good condition".
There is no getting around it, forty year old dried out caps may still function, but will not sound their best, and may likely sound like crap.
Hey... that they function at all after forty years is a testiment to good engineering. So time to pay up for a refurb if you want your older gear to sound good! Better still, buy the good caps and make it soung GREAT!

 

[PB_Audio]

I would love to have a Model 18 or 19. Those are some fine looking receivers. Any of this gear is capable of bringing the tunes, I just think its rare for gear to really disappear from the sound, to get out of the way. And the more something has a recognizable sound of its own, the less I'm happy with it because of that reason. But I've not heard the 18 or 19. They are increasingly rare.

Worth commenting on... I absolutely agree with the design goal that high-end audio equipment avioding having a sonic "signature" of it's own. The 'proper' goal of "HI-FI", by definition, is to maintain a HIGH FIDELITY to the original source without inparting any sonic anomalies in the amplification process.
The description of a preamp being "a straight wire with gain" was once a popular description of high-end preamps.
There are what are called "line stage amps", becoming popular among High-End Audio enthusiasts. ARC (Audio Research Corp.) for example, makes the LS-15 which has no tone controls, and doesn't even have a phono stage. Certainly there are others... many worth considering. The idea, of course, is to avoiding the noise added by all the extra circuitry.
In fairness, few of us, if any, would pay up for the current SOTA in High-End Audio; but even there, one may over look a bit of a 'signature' in the pursuit of the absolute sound, if all other design goals are successfully achieved... and some may very well find a particular signature attractive or complimentary to a speaker system in a particular acoustic setting.
In the end, who's to say what one may prefer? Accuracy in sound reproduction, though, is certainly a valid design goal.

 

[stish]

I have owned in the past Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, Marantz, and other excellent tube equipment. It became a love hate relationship with some of the amps I owned due to tube wear and biasing etc. Which is why I started in the direction of a Solid State Amp with a tube pre, which is a nice and reliable set up. I can understand your love of SET amps and as others have said not all are after the same sound. I value realistic vocals and a wide and deep soundstage with air and dimensionaliy. When I had owned very expensive equipment I would have laughed at someone mentioning a properly rebuilt marantz reciver as an alternative. I will say that from selling Marantz receivers new in the 70's they got alot of things that I like right. My current receiver with fresh caps and fresh films and rewired etc, etc is an amazing piece, and floors many that hear it for the first time. So to be able to be punching well above it's weight my Marantz receiver is a real bargain, I have not heard any thing close you need to spend 1K plus to do it. That is why I am passionate about Marantz, what a value, a 100.00 purchase from craigslist and then a self done rebuild. If anyone wants to tout, Yamaha, Sansui, etc etc please do it in the appropriate forum.

You make a valid point. Please know that I was not dissing passion or at least did not intend to. I was questioning the personal attacks. I agree fully with your post.

 

[jstang]

You want uncolored? Ditch the crossovers....

 

[JohnVF]

You want uncolored? Ditch the crossovers....

I've tried that with a pair of speakers utilizing Audio Nirvana drivers but they also have their own coloration, especially a bit of ragged response up top, I'm assuming from something with the whizzer cone. They image incredibly well, though, and are very engaging to listen to as long as you're sitting dead center. The Quad 63s, without a traditional crossover, do a better job...probably the most neutral, natural sounding speakers I've had. But they're a bit picky about amps and could seriously damage a lot of receivers if they decide to protect themselves from being overdriven.

 

[cnh2]

I've found Marantz receivers a tad picky, themselves. There are some speakers that just do not like them. And others surprise me.

I tried several sets on my 2265. None that impressed till I put a set of Polk Monitor 10As on it and whoa, I never expected those to have the synergy they seemed to have with the Marantz! YMMV.

cnh2

 

[patfont]

You want uncolored? Ditch the crossovers....

I will have to dig out my Fostex drivers for that!

 

[aramirez626]

I've found Marantz receivers a tad picky, themselves. There are some speakers that just do not like them. And others surprise me.

I tried several sets on my 2265. Not that impressed till I put a set of Polk Monitor 10As on it and whoa, I never expected those to have the synergy they seemed to have with the Marantz! YMMV.

cnh2

My 2275 was hooked up to a set of Vandersteen 2cs and boy did it sound amazing to my novice ears!

 

[Yggdrasill]

I have spent time with just two Marantz receivers, the 2270 and the 2238B. I liked both but they sound very different. With the 2238B I was often tempted to use the loudness button; it seemed a bit thin. Never so with the 2270, which I had fully recapped. I don't know how to describe the sound other than to say it is lush and rich. I think a previous poster's use of the word "euphonic" hits it on the head.

Sure, it's not the last word in dynamics but I don't feel an absence of treble or bass, especially after the recap. And it sounds good with every speaker I've hooked it up to, which is not true of a lot of other gear I've listened to.

I was wondering if anyone here could speak to whether the "Marantz sound" came more from the amplifier or the preamp section. I'm running it right now as a preamp to a Yamaha MX-2, into ADS 910s. Sounds great, but I'm hearing more Yamaha than Marantz, I think.

 

[HVHiFI]

Wow! Was just reading through this thread and funny it went from a gear recommendation to a pissing match.

Everyone is forgetting a huge factor in all this debate...your ears. Everyone listens to what they like and what one person like another may hate. What I like you may not. Yes there are "flavors" of sound that one can describe with adjectives but in the end there are so many opinions of the same piece of gear.

I listen to many different pieces of gear from all manufacturers. I love many of them and not two are the same. A great example is my McIntosh MAC1900, it sound incredible to me, warm, and musical, there's my adjectives. I have heard people say it sounds flat and lifeless. Oh well. Same with Marantz, I think operating up to par they are punchy and powerful sounding which I like when playing different types of music, others say muffled, and uncolorful. Oh well. Most people listen with their ears, some their checkbooks.

Listen to what you like and like what you listen to.

 

[marantz me]

Amen brother !!!