Realistic sta 2000 vs 2100 vs 2300

Audi0

Audi0

Super Member
Just comparing the 2000 / 2100 / 2300 as there very similiar units and chances are made by the same company. However which is the best sounding in your
opinion?

There is a lot of favoritism towards the 2100 toroidal version here. Maybe because of the history but is it the best sounding out of the 3? Fit and finish in my opinion, the 2100 and 2000 have the upper hand. The 2300 is a little too digital in my opinion.

I got the 2300 apart in the garage at the moment which is a huge basket case. The new case for it is half finished. Then the mechanical side needs to be done. I'm just wondering if it's worth it to restore it or just put my money towards a 2100 or 2000. As those may be the better units to own.
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
Add STA-2100D to your list. The 2100's are sisters to the awesome (IMO) Concept 11.0 and 12.0D receivers.
 
I have the 2300 and have heard the 2100 with good speakers.. I could certainly throw a block party with mine though the elder neighbors I doubt would consider how good it sounds versus db level annoyance it could make. Low listening levels is very responsive, too. Good dubbing auto equalization if you have a decent recording equipment.

We've had a couple recent posters repairing extensive. I gave mine a good resoldering of all the wiring trees , rectifier bridges etc. under the bottom cover. some bad joints and others just aged solder but haven't touched a cap. damned good 4 banger tuners, not super good but good on a decent outdoor ant. for long distance.
bink
 
Well I was hoping more would chime in here as these are popular amps here on ak. I would say the tubby sound is a very accurate word to describe the way they sound. I too have heard a 2100 it was also tubby sounding.

I found 1 solder joint that lifted from a trace (repaired) and I'm sure there is more. I have been goofing around with mine. The treble attenuator only works in the 6hz position. 3 Hz I have to push the switch in half way and jiggle it around and then it kicks in(not dirty contacts). That's one of the downsides to these amps that switches are known to fail?

I'm at a cost to restore versus worth moment with mine.
 
Last edited:
I've read 'tubby' used to describe the sound. does that mean 'tube like'? imo these amps are very responsive to hz to khz.
---
Switches: That's the only issue I have had aside from soldering service.. after taking out of storage the power switch was intermittent red staying on. when did kick green the fm was weak even with good antenna. So I decided to take apart as needed cleaning anyway and I never had the bottom panel off before. After all soldering I saw the p-sw green, fm bars way up again, good sound but the stereo mono switch was not right. Had to hold the sw half way to get true stereo otherwise it was like half stereo mono? So I took the board out solder was fine (these switches are not deoxit accessible) then took the switch out and it just fell apart... tiny little contacts all over! Looked at them with a mag. and no evidence of arching. so not sure.. Anyway I assembled the sw w/o the contacts inside and now it's solid stereo/ no mono and even better half said 'better keep it." :D only thing is the stereo light blinks when phono is switched.

I did order a used board but yet to put it in.. so should you not have any luck with the 6/3hz switch I have 3 good ones. You can pm me if you need one or more. can get them out without them falling apart buy applying some aluminum tape to hold together.
bink.
 
I assumed it was pronounced tub:ie and not too:bie? Its the exaggeration of lower notes that I thought it was used to describe.
 
I bought a new STA-2300 37 years ago, I still have it a second system in my office with a pair of DEF BP-20's but for grins I hooked it up to my Klipshorns in my listening room in place of my Rogue Monoblocks and it sounded terrific, not as terrific as the Rogues, but darn good. Those receivers were absolute beasts.
 
This is a great list but incomplete in my opinion without the fabulous STA 2200. MOSFET ( Hitachi) Outputs & the only Realistic built with them. Rave reviews by members of AK Including myself.
 
Audi0 said:
Just comparing the 2000 / 2100 / 2300 as there very similiar units and chances are made by the same company. However which is the best sounding in your
opinion?

There is a lot of favoritism towards the 2100 toroidal version here. Maybe because of the history but is it the best sounding out of the 3? Fit and finish in my opinion, the 2100 and 2000 have the upper hand. The 2300 is a little too digital in my opinion.

I got the 2300 apart in the garage at the moment which is a huge basket case. The new case for it is half finished. Then the mechanical side needs to be done. I'm just wondering if it's worth it to restore it or just put my money towards a 2100 or 2000. As those may be the better units to own.Tom
Click to expand...
To me the 200D and 2100 basically sound identical and I have done some comparison. It is my view that toroidal transformers are not superior to conventional but they do weigh less, are more compact and produce less close proximity radiation than traditional transformers. Toroidal transformers also saturate more from DC offset in line voltages but they do have a bit more short burst demand capacity and are less prone to producing mechanical hum as they don't have plates. I believe the big preference is the 2100 was assembled in Japan and the 2100D was assembled in Korea. Both the 2100 and 2100D are really good receivers.
 
Late to the party, but I saw this thread was recently resurrected, so I am putting my 2 cents down.

I recently acquired a 2100D. My thoughts:

PROS:
- Overall, the sound is full and detailed. The power is definitely there.
- Looks cool
- Has a midrange adjustment, nice feature.
- Has 2 phono inputs
- Has a pre-out

CONS
1. Only two speaker channel outputs. 3 channels would have been nice for a unit this powerful, but at least there's a pre-out so you don't have to use channel B for your powered subwoofer.
2. The Loudness contour is TERRIBLE. It adds WAY too much bass and just sounds muffled and... bad. I use the loudness switch almost full-time on some of my other vintage receivers - this one, I never use. Aside from the Loudness feature being terrible, most of the other filters and adjusters also do nothing to improve the sound; some make it worse.
3. The attenuated volume is annoying. Too big of a jump between clicks. For lower-volume listening, you are often choosing between too quiet or too loud.
4. Knobs are plastic with aluminum jacketing, and also have knurled rubber rings around them. Not great. Only the tuning knob is solid aluminum. My unit is near mint, but I would bet that these knobs would show their age if they had been used more.
5. Not the easiest to work on from an internal architecture perspective.

DON'T CARE
- It doesn't have a toroidal transformer like the 2100. So what? Most great receivers don't, and I'm fairly certain it makes no noticeable difference whatsoever.
- The Dolby FM feature doesn't hurt anything, and it actually does give the tuner a (very) noticeably clearer sound, although with less bass.

OVERALL - A powerful unit that has great sound and great looks. The Low/Mid/High tuning knobs (with 2 selectable points for the bass and treble knobs) allow for a good amount of fine-tuning, while most of the other adjusters are useless enough to be considered cosmetic, IMO. Build quality is average. The 2100D has it where it counts, but if you want more features, then there are better options out there. If you must have 100+ watts, then this is a perfectly good option for a fraction of the cost of a Pioneer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom