I've had many receivers over the years, nothing sounds better than my dad's old Marantz 2220B

[Red October]

I'm very lucky to still have my father's old Marantz 2220B. It's not a high-end model or anything, no scope, one meter for tuning the radio only, no quadro and limited additional functions, but it sounds so good. Better than Yamaha Natural Sound CR-600. Better than Pioneer VSX-305. Better than Sony STR-DE945. I wish we had held on to the second one that I grabbed from a junk shop somewhere around 30 years ago, but already having the one I sold it on eBay for a couple hundred, which was much more than I paid for it. Now I see they approach $1,000 on eBay, so I am very pleased to still have my dad's.

But what makes these old boys sound so damn good? I know my dad spoke very highly of Marantz, he told me of a demo he once saw where they had set up their 100-Watts-per-channel model with the outputs hooked not to speakers but to 100-Watt light bulbs, and with the volume set to maximum (I assume there was a tone generator involved, he didn't speak of it) it lit all four bulbs just as brightly as it they were hooked to the mains. There was a banner that said "When we say 100 Watts, we mean 100 Watts". The 2220B is just a 20 Watt-per-channel unit, but it never seems to lack power although I have never tried to drive huge speakers with it, just the kind of medium-to-large floor/bookshelf type speakers typical of its vintage. I also remember distinctly my dad telling me that Watts-per-channel is not indicative of very much, the theater at his university had a pair of Ampex single-channel tube amps that were rated at a shockingly low value for Watts-per-channel but that they could drive the big Altec-Lansing "Voice of the Theater"s quite readily and together they could fill the theater with clear and powerful sound.

 

[Bushikan]

I started with Marantz. I’ve always had a soft spot for their equipment. It’s great when you are more than satisfied with a piece, too. Congratulations! Enjoy that receiver. It’s a classic and a beauty—one I almost bought used way back as a teenager.

FWIW, those Altec VOTs are extremely efficient. They don’t require a lot of juice. And horns love tubes. Welcome to AK. Party on!

 

[KentTeffeteller]

Marantz was well built, well designed, and engineered. Always in that era honest performance. Always easy and enjoyable to listen to, very musical.

 

[malden]

I'm very lucky to still have my father's old Marantz 2220B. It's not a high-end model or anything, no scope, one meter for tuning the radio only, no quadro and limited additional functions, but it sounds so good.

those elements do nothing to improve the sound of a receiver, just bells & whistles

Better than Yamaha Natural Sound CR-600. Better than Pioneer VSX-305. Better than Sony STR-DE945.

just about any receiver from the 1970's would sound better than those, Marantz didn't have a monopoly on good sound

I wish we had held on to the second one that I grabbed from a junk shop somewhere around 30 years ago, but already having the one I sold it on eBay for a couple hundred, which was much more than I paid for it. Now I see they approach $1,000 on eBay, so I am very pleased to still have my dad's.

would you be as pleased with your Marantz if it were only selling for a fraction of that?

But what makes these old boys sound so damn good?

in my opinion, discrete components

I know my dad spoke very highly of Marantz, he told me of a demo he once saw where they had set up their 100-Watts-per-channel model with the outputs hooked not to speakers but to 100-Watt light bulbs, and with the volume set to maximum (I assume there was a tone generator involved, he didn't speak of it) it lit all four bulbs just as brightly as it they were hooked to the mains. There was a banner that said "When we say 100 Watts, we mean 100 Watts".

sounds gimmicky

The 2220B is just a 20 Watt-per-channel unit, but it never seems to lack power although I have never tried to drive huge speakers with it, just the kind of medium-to-large floor/bookshelf type speakers typical of its vintage.

depending on the era, larger speakers were generally more efficient than smaller speakers

I also remember distinctly my dad telling me that Watts-per-channel is not indicative of very much,

watts per channel is indicative of the amount of power an amplifier can deliver, it is a very important specification

the theater at his university had a pair of Ampex single-channel tube amps that were rated at a shockingly low value for Watts-per-channel but that they could drive the big Altec-Lansing "Voice of the Theater"s quite readily and together they could fill the theater with clear and powerful sound.

the Altec VOT's were highly efficient speakers so no surprise that the Ampex (single channel?) tube amps drove them adequately

 

[Red October]

those elements do nothing to improve the sound of a receiver, just bells & whistles

True, true, although some of them are meant to improve the sound and actually can, like the high and low filters, which help with crappy recordings. The scope is just cool, really, but part of the reason I like this receiver is that it looks cool, I think the blue-dial Marantz receivers are among the coolest looking ever made and I don't believe this is a rare sentiment.

just about any receiver from the 1970's would sound better than those, Marantz didn't have a monopoly on good sound

The Yamaha is also a 70s unit and it also sounds very good. I actually swapped them out because the Yamaha is in need of what I have come to think of as a "Spa Day", the controls are very dirty and I think there are some marginal solder joints in it that need to be reworked.

would you be as pleased with your Marantz if it were only selling for a fraction of that?

It wouldn't bother me if they were still selling for the $200 I got for the second one way back when. It sounds good, it looks amazing and it was my dad's, which makes it special in a way that is difficult to put a price on.

in my opinion, discrete components

Definitely. I've worked at an electronics recycler, taking **** apart all day, all kinds of ****, industrial, medical, &c, and I can recognize quality, and it's got it.

sounds gimmicky

I can't say otherwise.

depending on the era, larger speakers were generally more efficient than smaller speakers

Oh yeah, like the Klipschorn!

watts per channel is indicative of the amount of power an amplifier can deliver, it is a very important specification

Oh no I understand fully what it means, but also that it's not directly correlated with good sound. You can have a great-sounding setup without much watts, but the other road, with inefficient speakers, requires sufficient watts to achieve good sound. It's just the nature of the beast.

the Altec VOT's were highly efficient speakers so no surprise that the Ampex (single channel?) tube amps drove them adequately

Yeah, there was one amp per channel, I think they were two Watts each.