Stevescivic
Active Member
Wow I didn't visit AK for a week and all this buzz! This is great feedback. Great I've been a busy body the past week or two and I decided that in order for me to find out for myself the sonic differences in my own home using my speakers in my room that I had no choice (j/k I always have a choice but last week I had the itch to buy my first surround receiver) but to buy a new modern day AVR that is price matched to inflation to go against my fully restored Pioneer SX-1050 (and my other similar class 1970s receivers).
What did I end up buying? I walked into an audio boutique and purchased a Marantz SR-8012.
Why an SR-8012?
1. 140 watts RMS / channel class A/B amplification - similar power output to my restored Pioneer SX-1050
2. Made in Japan
3. Toroidal transformer
4. Similar capacitance
5. Copper plated chassis (it shows that Marantz does put some quality work into their designs).
6. I needed a home theatre receiver since my last surround receiver was from 1991.
Impressions:
The Marantz out of the box was a disappointment. It sounded bleh and few others that heard it also agreed it was not so hot for a $4K CAD receiver. I knew better and allowed the unit to burn in/break in for hours and hour of play for both music and movies. So far I've accumulated at least 25 hours of run time on it and whatever break in means for new electronics that the sound has warmed up and no longer sounds harsh.
Words that I would use to describe the sound is accurate, revealing, relaxed yet transparent with a large soundstage. Bass performance for an integrated multi channel amp is remarkably good, far better than I EVER expected because I've been often underwhelmed by lesser units. Big power supplies and large filter caps DO make a difference. What somewhat surprised me was that the Marantz sounded warmer at times than the Pioneer. I was totally expecting the Marantz to be more clinical sounding like many modern receivers that I've previously listened to. The details in the music were slightly more revealing and the placement of sounds on the soundstage just seemed to be bigger/deeper/wider than the Pioneer. The sound signature of the Marantz is different from the Pioneer but as many have alluded to as well as my own experiences with various amps and receivers that they each have their own sound.
That being said, this is not to say that the Pioneer loses to the Marantz - not at all as a matter of fact but rather that the Marantz has earned a spot in the equipment rack with the Pioneer. What amazes me is that the Pioneer 43 years after it was made can still EASILY rival a premium unit like the SR-8012. What amazes me with the SR-8012 is that the designers actually put some serious thought into its design and made a unit that can compete with properly working quality built vintage equipment. I was truly blown away by the performance of both old and new. I think the comparison was more than fair as the test conditions were exactly the same and since I listen to the same music day in day out that I am very aware of the what I should be hearing. By no stretch of the imagination am I a pro or an experienced audiophile but what I do know is that my ears don't lie to me and the Marantz and Pioneer can compete neck to neck with each other any day of the week.
The SX-1050 back in 1976 was likely around $800ish CAD while the Marantz cost $4k CAD. I guess when you factor in inflation that the numbers align nearly perfectly and thus I feel that my comparison is a reasonable one. Too bad I had to pay so much to do my own test
The Marantz is a keeper as is the Pioneer. The question now is what receiver do I put on the chopping block? So many vintage units and not enough rooms to house speakers and receivers in. WAF is rapidly decreasing as she's pointed out to me that there is an infestation of audio equipment in our home.
What did I end up buying? I walked into an audio boutique and purchased a Marantz SR-8012.
Why an SR-8012?
1. 140 watts RMS / channel class A/B amplification - similar power output to my restored Pioneer SX-1050
2. Made in Japan
3. Toroidal transformer
4. Similar capacitance
5. Copper plated chassis (it shows that Marantz does put some quality work into their designs).
6. I needed a home theatre receiver since my last surround receiver was from 1991.
Impressions:
The Marantz out of the box was a disappointment. It sounded bleh and few others that heard it also agreed it was not so hot for a $4K CAD receiver. I knew better and allowed the unit to burn in/break in for hours and hour of play for both music and movies. So far I've accumulated at least 25 hours of run time on it and whatever break in means for new electronics that the sound has warmed up and no longer sounds harsh.
Words that I would use to describe the sound is accurate, revealing, relaxed yet transparent with a large soundstage. Bass performance for an integrated multi channel amp is remarkably good, far better than I EVER expected because I've been often underwhelmed by lesser units. Big power supplies and large filter caps DO make a difference. What somewhat surprised me was that the Marantz sounded warmer at times than the Pioneer. I was totally expecting the Marantz to be more clinical sounding like many modern receivers that I've previously listened to. The details in the music were slightly more revealing and the placement of sounds on the soundstage just seemed to be bigger/deeper/wider than the Pioneer. The sound signature of the Marantz is different from the Pioneer but as many have alluded to as well as my own experiences with various amps and receivers that they each have their own sound.
That being said, this is not to say that the Pioneer loses to the Marantz - not at all as a matter of fact but rather that the Marantz has earned a spot in the equipment rack with the Pioneer. What amazes me is that the Pioneer 43 years after it was made can still EASILY rival a premium unit like the SR-8012. What amazes me with the SR-8012 is that the designers actually put some serious thought into its design and made a unit that can compete with properly working quality built vintage equipment. I was truly blown away by the performance of both old and new. I think the comparison was more than fair as the test conditions were exactly the same and since I listen to the same music day in day out that I am very aware of the what I should be hearing. By no stretch of the imagination am I a pro or an experienced audiophile but what I do know is that my ears don't lie to me and the Marantz and Pioneer can compete neck to neck with each other any day of the week.
The SX-1050 back in 1976 was likely around $800ish CAD while the Marantz cost $4k CAD. I guess when you factor in inflation that the numbers align nearly perfectly and thus I feel that my comparison is a reasonable one. Too bad I had to pay so much to do my own test
The Marantz is a keeper as is the Pioneer. The question now is what receiver do I put on the chopping block? So many vintage units and not enough rooms to house speakers and receivers in. WAF is rapidly decreasing as she's pointed out to me that there is an infestation of audio equipment in our home.
Last edited: