• Please note that Audiokarma will be offline briefly for updates early on Monday morning, September 28th.

My Marantz 2270 doesn't sound any better than my modern Denon AVR-X1700H. What am I missing?

Mister Pig said:
This is a vintage site and the Marantz receivers are sacred cows around here, so it is unlikely that more than a handful of folks would post an unkind word about them. My opinion, and I am just a simple barnyard pig so take that for what its worth, is that receivers as a whole are a compromise. They perform many functions and are convenient, but in terms of high performance audio playback they fall short of other options. A well designed integrated amp from a manufacturer that focuses on audio quality, in short a specialist company, is going to offer a higher level of sound quality over the Denon or Marantz. Or perhaps an amplifier/pre-amplifier stack is better aligned with what you want to hear. Now the question becomes what is good enough to satisfy you? Perhaps it is indeed a refurbished Marantz receiver, and the receivers do fit a certain lifestyle profile. I would also suggest visiting a specialty audio store and listening to various systems, if there is an audio club in your area attend a gathering to hear other people's systems, or if there are AKers in your area perhaps one of them would be willing to play their system and give you some alternate experiences to draw upon. In this hobby our listening experiences are a personal journey, and each one of us travel a specific path to audio nirvana. What you see and experience on your travels does not have to be the same as another, and what you value in terms of audio reproduction does not have to match what others experience. However it is a journey and you have to travel it and hear things to know what meets your needs and desires.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the pig wisdom. Lots of good suggestions in here.
 
Mister Pig said:
This is a vintage site and the Marantz receivers are sacred cows around here, so it is unlikely that more than a handful of folks would post an unkind word about them. My opinion, and I am just a simple barnyard pig so take that for what its worth, is that receivers as a whole are a compromise. They perform many functions and are convenient, but in terms of high performance audio playback they fall short of other options. A well designed integrated amp from a manufacturer that focuses on audio quality, in short a specialist company, is going to offer a higher level of sound quality over the Denon or Marantz. Or perhaps an amplifier/pre-amplifier stack is better aligned with what you want to hear. Now the question becomes what is good enough to satisfy you? Perhaps it is indeed a refurbished Marantz receiver, and the receivers do fit a certain lifestyle profile. I would also suggest visiting a specialty audio store and listening to various systems, if there is an audio club in your area attend a gathering to hear other people's systems, or if there are AKers in your area perhaps one of them would be willing to play their system and give you some alternate experiences to draw upon. In this hobby our listening experiences are a personal journey, and each one of us travel a specific path to audio nirvana. What you see and experience on your travels does not have to be the same as another, and what you value in terms of audio reproduction does not have to match what others experience. However it is a journey and you have to travel it and hear things to know what meets your needs and desires.
Click to expand...

Well... those receivers might actually be "sacred cows" but not by me and I own one! I think that the popularity of these things has as much to do with the aesthetics and history of the brand than the sound quality... but that being said, I believe that they do have very good sound quality, if not quite as good as other options for the price. Sound quality too is really subjective, but even so it seems that all things being equal most would prefer the sound of a well maintained Martanz 2270 to a cheap contemporary AVR. If the Marantz sounds really bad in comparison, one has to wonder if it's not operating up to spec, or in the case of the OP the thing that was running into the amp was a digital source, one feeding into the AVR DAC and the other going straight into analog inputs (at least that's my understanding of it). If that's the case with the digital source, then trying it with both running into even an inexpensive outboard DAC (like the Schiit) would be a far better comparison.

I would say that if you can find a tech to look over your Marantz, it might be worth doing. Even if you have to spend a few hundred dollars on getting some parts replaced so that it's working to spec, it'll likely be worth it even if you don't end up loving the sound and keeping the thing. For what those things sell for and how much more it'll be worth if you can say that it's been gone over by a tech and everything is 100%, you'd likely be getting the money that you put into and than some.
 
RunOutGroove said:
Well... those receivers might actually be "sacred cows" but not by me and I own one! I think that the popularity of these things has as much to do with the aesthetics and history of the brand than the sound quality... but that being said, I believe that they do have very good sound quality, if not quite as good as other options for the price. Sound quality too is really subjective, but even so it seems that all things being equal most would prefer the sound of a well maintained Martanz 2270 to a cheap contemporary AVR. If the Marantz sounds really bad in comparison, one has to wonder if it's not operating up to spec, or in the case of the OP the thing that was running into the amp was a digital source, one feeding into the AVR DAC and the other going straight into analog inputs (at least that's my understanding of it). If that's the case with the digital source, then trying it with both running into even an inexpensive outboard DAC (like the Schiit) would be a far better comparison.

I would say that if you can find a tech to look over your Marantz, it might be worth doing. Even if you have to spend a few hundred dollars on getting some parts replaced so that it's working to spec, it'll likely be worth it even if you don't end up loving the sound and keeping the thing. For what those things sell for and how much more it'll be worth if you can say that it's been gone over by a tech and everything is 100%, you'd likely be getting the money that you put into and than some.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all fronts. I'll be testing out an outboard DAC in front of each receiver, and also likely getting the Marantz serviced before I decide to keep it or sell it. Thanks for your response.
 
RunOutGroove said:
Well... those receivers might actually be "sacred cows" but not by me and I own one! I think that the popularity of these things has as much to do with the aesthetics and history of the brand than the sound quality... but that being said, I believe that they do have very good sound quality, if not quite as good as other options for the price. Sound quality too is really subjective, but even so it seems that all things being equal most would prefer the sound of a well maintained Martanz 2270 to a cheap contemporary AVR. If the Marantz sounds really bad in comparison, one has to wonder if it's not operating up to spec, or in the case of the OP the thing that was running into the amp was a digital source, one feeding into the AVR DAC and the other going straight into analog inputs (at least that's my understanding of it). If that's the case with the digital source, then trying it with both running into even an inexpensive outboard DAC (like the Schiit) would be a far better comparison.

I would say that if you can find a tech to look over your Marantz, it might be worth doing. Even if you have to spend a few hundred dollars on getting some parts replaced so that it's working to spec, it'll likely be worth it even if you don't end up loving the sound and keeping the thing. For what those things sell for and how much more it'll be worth if you can say that it's been gone over by a tech and everything is 100%, you'd likely be getting the money that you put into and than some.
Click to expand...

I think Marantz receivers are built like tanks simply but effectively. The 2330B is the only time I think Marantz fumbled the ball stuffing two filter caps in one can. I think the engineer that designed the filter cap segment of the Marantz 2330B was on crack at the time. Sad because the Marantz 2330B is among the most beautiful machines Marantz ever made. She is powerful too at 130 WPC into 8 Ohms. Her sound is almost without equal among receivers. The Marantz 2330B is hard to get professionally repaired. I went on Ebay and brought specialty caps made to completely re-stuff the cap cans on my Marantz 2330B.
 
I'll make a few observations.

1. The 2270 may need some servicing. We don't know. It *should* make those Heresies happy.
2. Klipsch Heritage speakers do not necessarily hate modern power, but the horn driven sound can be overly bright, to some ears with it. So, it's more correct to say some people hate Heresies with modern sound. The pairing of "warmer" 70s solid state or tubes helps this.
3. Need to do apples to apples. I would do something like a cd player played on one, then the other, then maybe the record player and its preamp played on one, then the other, then into the 2270 phono stage with the record player by itself.
4. Marantz is loved by many, but it is on par with any of the good US/Japanese companies of the 70s. Yamaha, Kenwood, Onkyo, Pioneer, Panasonic/Technics, Sansui, etc. Maybe a cut above Sanyo, and maybe a cut below the almighty McIntosh. Denon makes good stuff, too. A Denon AVR is no slouch. I have had a pawn store special I bought in 04 still running fine, zero complaints, 18 years later.

We can find a good home for the 2270, restored or not, should you decide to part with it.
 
Kodaline said:
I'll make a few observations.

1. The 2270 may need some servicing. We don't know. It *should* make those Heresies happy.
2. Klipsch Heritage speakers do not necessarily hate modern power, but the horn driven sound can be overly bright, to some ears with it. So, it's more correct to say some people hate Heresies with modern sound. The pairing of "warmer" 70s solid state or tubes helps this.
3. Need to do apples to apples. I would do something like a cd player played on one, then the other, then maybe the record player and its preamp played on one, then the other, then into the 2270 phono stage with the record player by itself.
4. Marantz is loved by many, but it is on par with any of the good US/Japanese companies of the 70s. Yamaha, Kenwood, Onkyo, Pioneer, Panasonic/Technics, Sansui, etc. Maybe a cut above Sanyo, and maybe a cut below the almighty McIntosh. Denon makes good stuff, too. A Denon AVR is no slouch. I have had a pawn store special I bought in 04 still running fine, zero complaints, 18 years later.

We can find a good home for the 2270, restored or not, should you decide to part with it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your feedback. I like the CD player idea, and a friend also suggested doing a phono shootout, as the Marantz's phono stage may be a bit "better" than the Denon's if it's working properly.

To be clear to everyone that has graciously responded, I actually think the Denon sounds great! I'm really impressed with it, and I've really enjoyed listening to music on it. My only "complaint" here is that I was expecting a clear degree of difference when I set up the Marantz. As I continue to refine the experiment (adding a proper streamer and DAC, trying the phono stages, servicing the Marantz, etc.) I think I'll have a much better idea of the two receivers' quality and character, and which will ultimately stay in rotation.
 
ianstaub said:
Thanks for your feedback. I like the CD player idea, and a friend also suggested doing a phono shootout, as the Marantz's phono stage may be a bit "better" than the Denon's if it's working properly.

To be clear to everyone that has graciously responded, I actually think the Denon sounds great! I'm really impressed with it, and I've really enjoyed listening to music on it. My only "complaint" here is that I was expecting a clear degree of difference when I set up the Marantz. As I continue to refine the experiment (adding a proper streamer and DAC, trying the phono stages, servicing the Marantz, etc.) I think I'll have a much better idea of the two receivers' quality and character, and which will ultimately stay in rotation.
Click to expand...

I been holding off on posting, but this is where I stand with your situation -

You're not comparing apples to apples. More like comparing leftovers with fast food. I've owned and heard many Denon a/v receivers, and they're not bad.

I've also helped a friend restore her own 2275 or 2270, hell, I cannot remember which, and it sounded stupendous when done.

You like the Denon. Why not just rock that, and plan on getting a full restoration of the Marantz in the meantime?? Once done, THEN you can assess. In life, as in this hobby especially, comparison is the killer of contentment. If you're as fond of the Denon you have, as impressed as you've stated, and you're having fun, why do anything?

As others have wisely stated, a fully restored Marantz will certainly sell, and for probably a considerable amount.
 
I have mostly vintage SS equipment. My newest piece is an early 90s Yamaha Dolby Pro Logic receiver. I think it sounds great in 2 channel.

The vintage Pioneer and Marantz receivers I have are now restored. The vintage equipment from those brands has been described as warm sounding. I'm wondering how the sound might compare without the sub, although neither of your speakers have a great bass response on their own.

Lastly, I'd wonder how each receiver would sound with a bass heavy but harder to drive load like an AR3 or OAL speaker? You might find the Denon doesn't do as well with low impedance speakers? Or maybe not.
 
Is it possible that you listened, maintained your objectivity, and there really isn't much of a difference because they are both pretty good? Differences between speakers are often pretty obvious, but for the amplifiers most of us have, I suspect the differences are not very great.
 
ianstaub said:
Thanks for your feedback. I like the CD player idea, and a friend also suggested doing a phono shootout, as the Marantz's phono stage may be a bit "better" than the Denon's if it's working properly.

To be clear to everyone that has graciously responded, I actually think the Denon sounds great! I'm really impressed with it, and I've really enjoyed listening to music on it. My only "complaint" here is that I was expecting a clear degree of difference when I set up the Marantz. As I continue to refine the experiment (adding a proper streamer and DAC, trying the phono stages, servicing the Marantz, etc.) I think I'll have a much better idea of the two receivers' quality and character, and which will ultimately stay in rotation.
Click to expand...

And perhaps it's unsurprising that you do not to find much difference in audio quality between two large company receivers ...
That's been my experience many many times ...

I'd guess that you would find substantial differences between either of those receivers and most small company separates or even integrated amps ..
That's more less established audiophile wisdom ...
 
Akustic said:
And perhaps it's unsurprising that you do not to find much difference in audio quality between two large company receivers ...
That's been my experience many many times ...

I'd guess that you would find substantial differences between either of those receivers and most small company separates or even integrated amps ..
That's more less established audiophile wisdom ...
Click to expand...
I do think that this is possible, particularly depending on what you're running into and out of those amps and how discerning you are about these sort of things. I'll even admit that a cheap (I paid $25 for it) lower powered Niko receiver that I got sounded better than I thought with my system, when I needed something when the Marantz was getting serviced. I even felt that it had a bit stronger bass, though everything else was comparatively thin with it. Someone else though might have thought that the Niko sounded fine and would have had no idea that the Marantz was something that might have been valued an amount that's exponentially more...
 
Akustic said:
And perhaps it's unsurprising that you do not to find much difference in audio quality between two large company receivers ...
That's been my experience many many times ...

I'd guess that you would find substantial differences between either of those receivers and most small company separates or even integrated amps ..
That's more less established audiophile wisdom ...
Click to expand...

This isn't the first time I've heard this, and I think you're right. I am a wine guy, and maybe this is like comparing two $30 supermarket Cabernets from Napa. There isn't much character or uniqueness in this market segment since it's meant to appeal to the widest range of tastes. With few exceptions, you'd need to either a) spend a lot more money, or b) seek out smaller artisanal producers in order to find a product that speaks to its place or an individual's point of view.

I'm interested to continue to explore these smaller companies, but a bit overwhelmed (both by technology and dollar signs). Is there any kind of primer document or video that maybe explores some of these companies and their house styles? I do watch Darko and Steve Guttenberg with some regularity so I'm not coming at it totally blind.
 
ianstaub said:
This isn't the first time I've heard this, and I think you're right. I am a wine guy, and maybe this is like comparing two $30 supermarket Cabernets from Napa. There isn't much character or uniqueness in this market segment since it's meant to appeal to the widest range of tastes. With few exceptions, you'd need to either a) spend a lot more money, or b) seek out smaller artisanal producers in order to find a product that speaks to its place or an individual's point of view.

I'm interested to continue to explore these smaller companies, but a bit overwhelmed (both by technology and dollar signs). Is there any kind of primer document or video that maybe explores some of these companies and their house styles? I do watch Darko and Steve Guttenberg with some regularity so I'm not coming at it totally blind.
Click to expand...

Not exactly any way to get the info in a nutshell ...
Like wine it's a collective wisdom ..
And like wine the more you pay the finer it usually is .. bargains exist but you have to know the players ..

For starters I would say British or any products made by the manufacturers of fine well liked separates, or their designers or copies of their designs ..
Names of the designer count ... if it's not designed by committee, you're on the right track ..
And any classic that the Chinese are copying is likely worth a listen .. it's about sound quality or they wouldn't bother.
High quality integrateds are a tough find altogether, but especially when you can get used quality separates (amp and preamp) for $500 for the pair ..
 
Last edited:
I had a bunch of old Marantzs around in the early 2000's.
Only one sounded good. That is the nature of unrestored Marantz
stuff. Bloated bass and poor highs. I moved them on out to make
room for 90's separates. A lot of people locally told me how great
Marantz sounded and restoring them ruined the sound. I had an
1150 back in the day and knew better. At the time work was taking
up all my time and kid's college all my money. I have time and
Money now, so rebuilds are possible. Is yours suffering from aging?
You'd have to describe the sound in detail, but I'm 90% certain that's
the case.
 
keitht said:
I had a bunch of old Marantzs around in the early 2000's.
Only one sounded good. That is the nature of unrestored Marantz
stuff. Bloated bass and poor highs. I moved them on out to make
room for 90's separates. A lot of people locally told me how great
Marantz sounded and restoring them ruined the sound. I had an
1150 back in the day and knew better. At the time work was taking
up all my time and kid's college all my money. I have time and
Money now, so rebuilds are possible. Is yours suffering from aging?
You'd have to describe the sound in detail, but I'm 90% certain that's
the case.
Click to expand...

I've never heard a fully restored 2270, so I don't have reference for comparison. I was actually surprised that the Marantz could keep up with the Denon in terms of high frequency response, but I do think the bass could be described as a bit boomy or muddy.
 
ianstaub said:
I like your description of where the listener is sitting in comparing the two amps. Last night, I was listening to the Charlie Haden duets record (I love how double bass sounds on the Heresy IV) and with the Marantz I felt he was in the room 10 feet in front of me, and with the Denon it was like I was putting my ear up to the fingerboard as he played, with the treble being a bit more exaggerated. Different sounds, the Marantz felt a bit more natural. But to reiterate, very minor difference. My comparison is a bit of an exaggeration.

I'm definitely not against restoration of the 2270. It's obviously a pretty valuable and desirable piece, and it doesn't really have much sentimental value. I do worry about selling it to fund a new gear purchase and the regretting letting it go as prices for these things continue to climb. Things that are most important to me sonically right now are soundstage and imaging. I like to feel inside the music in three dimensions. Do you think these elements would be noticeably improved with a restoration?
Click to expand...
Speaking from personal experience, yes.
I've been repairing audio gear professionally since 1977 and I always hear a huge improvement in sound after a full recap, and replacement of noisy transistors.
 
ianstaub said:
I've never heard a fully restored 2270, so I don't have reference for comparison. I was actually surprised that the Marantz could keep up with the Denon in terms of high frequency response, but I do think the bass could be described as a bit boomy or muddy.
Click to expand...

The Marantz's are basically Superscope products and were notorious for just barely adequate power supplies ..
Superscope was definitely the budget brand of the 70's and 80's
The power supply is the most expensive component in the receiver and the first place to skimp when making the product to a price point ..
Lack of sufficient reserves in the power supply would certainly result in boomy, or muddy bass..
The Marantz's were infamous for being easily overdriven ...
The prices that are being offered for them these days are basically a nostalgia tax, not a build or sound quality justified premium ..
Any contemporary Luxman product was built better and would likely sound far better than a Marantz .
The Marantz's were essentially the wimps back in the day ..
 
Last edited:
ianstaub said:
Great thought, thank you for your response. The room is actually pretty unusual and undoubtedly plays a role. We live in a mid-century modern home, so the space in question has walls of glass, polished concrete floors, and is open plan. To combat this, there are lots of soft furnishings and a huge shag rug in front of the speakers. There are no noticeable reflections in the space despite the hard surfaces. The rear wall is nearly 35' back. The ceiling is wooden post and beam with the beams creating a sort of baffle every 8ft or so. Think something very much like the attached image, with the speakers located at the TV wall as shown.

Rather than being a reflective mess, I've found that the architecture actually allows the sound to breath a bit more. But I'm not an acoustician, and like you said, maybe the room is overriding the sound in ways that I can't perceive. We won't be doing any conspicuous acoustical treatments as the look of the home is more important to us than its acoustics.

I haven't brought anyone else in on this specific A/B test, but two family members who are audiophiles were both extremely impressed with the Denon/Klipsch sound and were amazed how well the room seemed to work acoustically.

View attachment 2714315
Click to expand...
Wow! That’s a beautiful space you have there!
 
Old tired capacitors vs merely well aged ones, lol. I was never a Marantz fan back in the day, they are easy to drive into clipping and sound horrible (in those days I could hear the first order harmonic distortion at 20kHz plus, it was painful).

However, at normal listening levels, I'm not terribly surprised they don't sound much different. New capacitors and small signal transistors will improve the Marantz, but I still wouldn't expect you to be "blown away" by the difference. The much newer Denon should have less THD and flatter frequency response, along with less background due to newer design, and more importantly, newer and better components.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom