• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Marantz 18 & 19 Receiver Restorations

BlackScholes

Active Member
Edit: After 2+ years, I'm finally tackling these receivers. After restoring dozens of items out of my collection, I can say that I know a lot more now than I did two years ago so I'll be making updates to the below summary as well as additional posts to the thread. Before I regained my sanity, I had accumulated 10+ Marantz 18s and 5 Marantz 19s. I'll keep two of each and the rest will be sold.

Since the two units are so similar and I have at least a couple of each, I wanted to start a new thread to go through my progress in bringing them back to original specification (and maybe even better). I'd like for this to one day be the definitive guide for one or both of these receivers.

Summary
I'm a past member here who has decided to start a new account given my last account was my full name and the internet has changed. I think the last time I spent a lot of time posting here was 2014. Since then, my collection of gear has narrowed in focus and I'm looking to learn more about electronics by recapping a couple of boards I have in parts units and going from there with actual functional units. When I think about my restorations, I do my best to look through the lens of the team who designed the 18 and chose the components for it since I simply don't see any bit of cost-cutting in the 18, but there are some obvious cuts in the 19. If the 18 were built today with the same type of components of the original but being up to today's standard, what parts would be used? Since nearly all of the parts in the 18 are of the same or better quality than the 19, I will apply the same parts used in the 18 to the 19 to the extent I can. I've become pretty obsessed with both models and hope this thread helps you and helps me get all of my ideas out there.

Test Equipment (updated 01/06/23)
Using the Marantz 19 service manual as guide, I purchased/already own the following:
  • 2x HP 8903B Audio Analyzer
  • HP 3456A Digital Voltmeter (because why not? also have Fluke 117)
  • HP 130C Oscilloscope
  • Superior Voltbox (Fancy Variac)
  • WD-766A Digital Wattmeter
  • 8 & 16-ohm dummy loads
  • various probes and cables
  • and more gear purchased since 11/20
Please recommend any equipment you think I may be missing along with what that piece of gear will help me do. I like HP/Agilent gear.

Marantz 18 vs Marantz 19
I've listened to and examined both the 18 and 19 along with studied both and can summarize the pros and cons of each fairly confidently:

Marantz 18
Pros:
  • Build quality exceeds the 19. The faceplate is cast iron. Top and bottoms covers are heavier. Glass dial. Better workmanship. No flimsy power supply board.
  • Higher quality parts overall.
  • Easier to keep the original look.
  • Slightly less expensive than the 19.
Cons:
  • HF winding in the transformer is prone to failure rendering the scope useless.
  • Power supply and scope are more difficult to access and work on.
  • To most, design is dated compared to Model 19.
  • Less powerful than the Model 19 (but we'll see if that holds post restore).
  • Dial lettering falls off (seriously, do not attempt to clean or touch).
  • Most heat sinks are faded.
  • Early units had a host of issues including power switch failures.
  • Tuner has weak amplification limiting station availability.
Marantz 19
Pros:
  • Higher power (50 vs 40 watts/channel @ 8 ohms)
  • Design sets the stage for all of the following classic receivers from the 1970s. Beautiful.
  • Anodizing & paint quality seems to be better than 18.
  • Some boards are easier to access and service.
  • Some transistors have sockets where they can simply be pulled out and reinserted.
  • Service manual is amazing.
  • Transformer seems less prone to failures.
Cons:
  • Cheaper parts were used and some cost cutting is apparent.
  • Some signs of poor workmanship in terms of soldering.
  • Impossible to recap and keep original looking unless restuffing caps.
  • Confines of power supply board & cover limits component choices.
  • Power supply board is prone to burn marks and is very brittle.
  • Some design choices were clearly made to make it easier to assemble the unit, but not for improved sound.
  • The black badge.
  • Faceplate was not meant to be disassembled, meaning the tinted plastic window cannot be easily separated from the aluminum. So, if it's badly scratched, you're SOL. Super cheap.
Current Progress
So far, I've cleaned/restored a tone board from one of the model 18s and have rebuilt a power supply on one of the 19s I have. Below, I'll summarize my findings with each board and include any questions I might have. Then I'll update the section with the answers as I receive them.

Tone Board
Even 53 years later, there are film caps available that are direct, drop in replacements for the ten you'll see I've replaced. No lead bending required. In addition, I replaced the four 100uf/mfd - 6vdc electrolytic capacitors. While those electrolytic caps tested fine, they all had levels of visible leakage/crustiness. I wanted to keep the original size & appearance so I replaced them with four tantalum capacitors. Three questions on this board:
  • Is there any reason to replace the 6800pf or the 220pf polystyrene capacitors? These are the small silver caps.
  • For the eight transistors, there are two part numbers (four of each):
    • 34-1008: I see NTE234 was once a sub according to info I found for the 19, but this transistor doesn't seem to be available. Looks like a 2N5401 works, but is there a better substitute?
    • 34-1010: 2N4401, 2N5769, 2N3904? Any others that are better?
  • Anything else I should do while I have these out?
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
I have at least a couple of each

Wow - I guess Black-Scholes is working pretty well for you!!

Sorry for frivolous post, but welcome back, nice work - and especially, congrats on a cool handle!

Cheers,

chazix (big compute farm wrangler in a former life)
 
Wow - I guess Black-Scholes is working pretty well for you!!

Sorry for frivolous post, but welcome back, nice work - and especially, congrats on a cool handle!

Cheers,

chazix (big compute farm wrangler in a former life)

Haha, finally understanding that model gave me the confidence that I could probably repair old audio equipment. I've been gathering up the 18s and 19s for a while. They didn't used to be so expensive.
 
Welcome back to AK.

I have several 18's and 19's as well and I am not sure where the "cheaper parts" or "cost cutting" in the 19 is. I have heard this but never have been able to quantify it.

On the other hand the 19 solves nearly all problems that the 18 has:

Power switch failure
Dial scale that is impossible to clean
LDR's that fail
Transformer failures
Scope HV Cap failures
Scope drive failure
Front end overloading on strong stations
Poor silkscreening
Popping sound when switching inputs
Difficult to service amp section

Of the 18's and 19's that I have the 19's seem to have aged much better than the 18's.
 
Amused by the title of your post - I wrote programs to implement that good but fairly simple model 43 years ago while at Stanford's GSB - one of which I managed to get onto the magnetic card of a TI SR-52. Fun memories.
 
Welcome back to AK.

I have several 18's and 19's as well and I am not sure where the "cheaper parts" or "cost cutting" in the 19 is. I have heard this but never have been able to quantify it.

On the other hand the 19 solves nearly all problems that the 18 has:

Power switch failure
Dial scale that is impossible to clean
LDR's that fail
Transformer failures
Scope HV Cap failures
Scope drive failure
Front end overloading on strong stations
Poor silkscreening
Popping sound when switching inputs
Difficult to service amp section

Of the 18's and 19's that I have the 19's seem to have aged much better than the 18's.

Let me start by saying that all of your posts have been extremely helpful when researching units.

That being said, many of the capacitors in the 19 are inferior to those in the 18 and less care was used when they were mounted. You can see this on the tone board and the phono board:

i-Gvh93Qk-L.jpg


In the 19, I've seen numerous boards that are warped because they aren't anchored to anything. The faceplate is thinner and the dial went from glass to plastic. The black surround that fits around the dial is also plastic. The panel on the back that fits around the connections is just glued on. It's all cost cutting. Marantz himself would've never allowed this either:

i-WL72tFd-L.jpg


Is the 19 a better designed unit in a myriad of ways? Yes. Should it sound better? Yes. Does it? Debatable. Did it cost less to produce adjusting for inflation? Definitely. In any case, compared to any receivers that came after them, in terms of build quality, both of these units blow the 70s and 80s away.
 
Amused by the title of your post - I wrote programs to implement that good but fairly simple model 43 years ago while at Stanford's GSB - one of which I managed to get onto the magnetic card of a TI SR-52. Fun memories.

That's quite a memory! It's still the standard for options valuation.
 
The 18 looks like a rushed to market alpha unit and ended up having many reliability problems. The power supply is literally tacked in all around the receiver. The amp section looks like a child laid it out. It was not done this way because it improved the sound or reliability. They could have put thees sections on PCB's but I suspect they did not have the time or money to do it. They probably spent more to produce each unit because they could not spend the larger upfront money to properly engineer it.

The 19 looks like a production unit and is much more reliable. Clearly a true manufacturing engineering team went to work and fixed all of the issues on the 18. We can nitpick details but the 19 seem to hold up as well or better, sounds as good and is more valuable. Just do a search of the model 18 on AK to see all of the problems. You can hardly find any with the 19.

Saul and his team did great work at making stuff sound good but the reliability never matched the sound quality. It's as if they had a great electrical engineering team and no manufacturing engineering team, they just let the electrical guys do it. 10B, SLT-12 and the 18 are examples of great technical products with reliability problems that ultimately caused such a cash burden it forced the sale of the company to Superscope. The 19 is the only Marantz product that had its roots with the old crew and the manufacturing excellence of the new crew, and it shows.
 
Last edited:
The 18 looks like a rushed to market alpha unit and ended up having many reliability problems. The power supply is literally tacked in all around the receiver. The amp section looks like a child laid it out. It was not done this way because it improved the sound or reliability. They could have put thees sections on PCB's but I suspect they did not have the time or money to do it. They probably spent more to produce each unit because they could not spend the larger upfront money to properly engineer it.

I would imagine it would be pretty difficult to predict things like the zener diode failures or that the early power switches would be faulty. By the time the 18 was produced, Superscope had owned Marantz for at least a couple of years. I doubt that cash was an issue by then, especially given that all of the Sprague caps in the 18s seem to have been purchased at the same time in 1967. On the 18, I don't at all mind the power supply layout. It's a heck of a lot easier to clip some leads on some axial capacitors (even if I've got to flip the unit a couple of times) then to carefully unsolder 100 different connection from an early, very fragile PCB.

I even found some new production Vishay/Sprague caps that look nearly the same as the originals including their dimensions.

The 19 looks like a production unit and is much more reliable. Clearly a true manufacturing engineering team went to work and fixed all of the issues on the 18. We can nitpick details but the 19 seem to hold up as well or better, sounds as good and is more valuable. Just do a search of the model 18 on AK to see all of the problems. You can hardly find any with the 19.

From a business standpoint, Marantz was clearly inept or simply didn't care. No one can take the bottom cover off of a 10B and tell me that the first intention in building it was to make money. It's an incredible feat and laughably complicated given it's all point-to-point. He charged too little for the 10B and the 18 as well by hundreds. Then when Superscope came in and finally took over in 1967 and Marantz left, they made production more efficient (you're clearly right about the manufacturing engineering team), less costly (moved production), and significantly raised the price. They learned from their mistakes with the 18 and obviously made a good decision by reworking the scope circuit. The Mallory caps have proven to be reliable 50 years later even as they leak fluid all over the power supply boards in these 19s. See below:

i-PNR9Hxj-L.jpg


Still haven't seen a board that wasn't scorched like this. Also notice the diode that has been replaced.

Saul and his team did great work at making stuff sound good but the reliability never matched the sound quality. It's as if they had a great electrical engineering team and no manufacturing engineering team, they just let the electrical guys do it. 10B, SLT-12 and the 18 are examples of great technical products with reliability problems that ultimately caused such a cash burden it forced the sale of the company to Superscope. The 19 is the only Marantz product that had its roots with the old crew and the manufacturing excellence of the new crew, and it shows.

I disagree here. The 18 had reliability issues, sure, but the rest of the Marantz line of products made up to that point didn't. By the end of production, with the exception of the scope the 18 became quite reliable.

I've owned 6-8 Marantz 10Bs (yes I know about the issues with the 10) over the years and every single one of them worked and were all completely stock except for a cap or two on one of them. Marantz used the best parts available up through the 18 and it showed. I've got an 8B that's completely original. Works fine, tests fine. Biases fine. Try that with a Fisher 500 or a SA-100/300.

Marantz wasn't forced to sell because of unreliability. They were forced to sell because they spent too much on the 10/10B R&D and were unable to turn a profit. It's been said that they lost money on every single 10B they produced.
 
Nice thread. Would like to see pics of the marantz collection.
I just started working on my marantz 19. Left channel is out. Passed DBT fine. Driver board is getting an audio signal. This should be interesting.
 
Last edited:
I would love to own a pair of model 9's. I've collected a lot of early to mid 70's Marantz separates. I've sold off most of it in the last couple years and have went to mostly tubes. I really liked the symmetrical layouts and how easy it all was in most cases to restore.
 
Nice thread. Would like to see pics of the marantz collection.
I just started working on my marantz 19. Left channel is out. Passed DBT fine. Driver board is getting an audio signal. This should be interesting. Power supply here I come.
I restored my model 19 a few months ago. Things went really well, but I had a little bit of distortion on the right channel that would show up on the O-scope. I ended up going down a really long rabbit hole. Testing almost every transistor and replacing a lot of components. Each of the transistors tested fine. Turns out that the idle/bias was way off in that channel. I only made things worse by changing components. My suggestion would be that you really zero in on that if you can’t find a bad component. Good luck. (I posted a few threads but you might find helpful. I got some great suggestions here from AKers)
 
I restored my model 19 a few months ago. Things went really well, but I had a little bit of distortion on the right channel that would show up on the O-scope. I ended up going down a really long rabbit hole. Testing almost every transistor and replacing a lot of components. Each of the transistors tested fine. Turns out that the idle/bias was way off in that channel. I only made things worse by changing components. My suggestion would be that you really zero in on that if you can’t find a bad component. Good luck. (I posted a few threads but you might find helpful. I got some great suggestions here from AKers)

my plan is now to recap the power supply and filter caps and then test voltages. That can’t hurt as a starting point.
 
Nope. I have been dealing with crawlspace work at my house and after disassembling it to start testing and life took a priority. That’s where I’ll start before recapping the power supply. Report back in about a month.
 
Back
Top Bottom