Top 10 Marantz Receiver

[vintagestereo]

In terms of manufacturer's rated power, the Top 10 most powerful Marantz Stereo Receivers of all time are:

1. 2600 (300x2)
2. 2500 (250x2)
3. 2385 (185x2)
4. TA170AV (170x2)
5. TA150 (150x2)
6. TA135AV (135x2)
7. TA110A (130x2)
8. 2330/2330B/SR9000G (130x2)
9. 2325/RS3559 (125x2)
10. SR7000G/SR940/TA100 (100x2)

Did I miss any?

The TA-Series are very "under the radar" and largely unknown. They date from 1986-1989 and were from Marantz's most desperate time. However, I for one (and perhaps the only one) really like them alot. Yes, the faces are all plastic, but, substantial amps and decent performance are there. Plus, unlike the legendary units, they have digital tunas, independent 5-Band EQs for Left and Right and remote controls.

And, like the legendary units, they have pre-out/main-ins on the back and discrete output transistors rather than Power Packs. Nice!

Here are some photos of the 170 wpc TA170AV I just got for a pathetic 50 bucks. This is not an HT Receiver, but a full-blown Stereo Receiver (although it has video inputs). And, it was the LAST BIG MARANTZ STEREO RECEIVER, at approximately 34 lbs. The end of the line.

After that came the truly dreadful SR-3600 and its ilk, which were actually made by Funai for Marantz. This one has been on E-Bay for SEVERAL MONTHS now:

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-MARANTZ-SR-...ryZ14981QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

And, then there was the infamous "Legacy Series"...............

For the curious, I've posted photos of the #4, the TA170AV below:

 

[Tropical]

Inflated wattage for many receivers from 1980's till now. Your ranking is therefore wrong.

 

[alexkerhead]

Tropical, those are all RMS ratings.

 

[Tropical]

I do not believe the numbers as we know many of these RMS from 1980's are bogus. For example: The Pioneer SX3900 has 120W/channel but no way it is as powerful as a SX1050. That may be wrong but I do not get the impression that it is the other way around.

 

[alexkerhead]

Watts are not the essential thing in receiver sound and quality.

120watts with high distortion and low DF will sound worse than 120watts with low distortion and high DF.

Frequency response curves can influence SQ as well.

 

[Brian]

While wattage may be massive it does not correltate into a good sounding amps, decent preamp or acceptable tuner.

The top 2 Marantz receivers were the 18 and 19. Next on my list would be the 2230 and then the baby 2210. From there, I have little interest in any receiver with the Marantz name as I can spend far less and get far more at almost every model point save amybe the 1500 and 2600 but I'd pass on these due to the transflormer issues and for what they go for today I can buy a setup of separate components that are better and have change left over.

 

[Tropical]

I hear you. Thus the 1980's TAxxxx and SRxxxx are crappy receivers and should not be listed among the rank of other wonderful recivers.

 

[alexkerhead]

Brian, the 2230 and 2270 have nearly identical acoustic properties. The 22XXB models had better acoustic performance than the 22XX models(including the 2230).

 

[nbourbaki]

Brian, the 2230 and 2270 have nearly identical acoustic properties. The 22XXB models had better acoustic performance than the 22XX models(including the 2230).

That's not my impression. The 2230 was capacitor coupled and the 2270 was direct coupled if I remember correctly. I'd give the 2230 a three martini rating and the 2270 a 2 martini rating. The 2285B was DC and dual power which kicked it up a notch sonically. I really like them all but they sound different to me.

 

[Inkara1]

Inflated wattage for many receivers from 1980's till now. Your ranking is therefore wrong.

I'm pretty sure he said "in terms of manufacturer's rated power," instead of "acutal output."

 

[Tropical]

And we all know "manufacturer's rated power ain't mean nothing... So what is his purpose? Trying to inflate inferior models?

 

[Urizen]

SR-7000 G. 110 per channel RMS into 8 ohms with .03% distortion.

But why?:scratch2: It did not have the typical Marantz sound we have all come to enjoy.

 

[Brian]

The 2270 was a great marketing success but these things were poorly designed having components that were only marginal in spec and were terribly unstable into 4 ohms. Technology itself is not the mark of a good or bad unit or design but when the technology is flawed then it can be. I'd rather have a capacitive based output design that is well done than a capacitiveless design that is unstable. Cap based design BTW actually are quite good being and many sound better than later designs.

As for sound the 2270 IMHO was without detail, muddy, flabby and missing almost everything that Saul Marantz strove to make as the signature Marantz sound. I know that many love them today and so be it but in their production period they it was on of the biggest headaches for dealers with more DOAs than almost any other unit. They were withdrawn by Marantz for a period and some of the problems corrected and then reintroduced to clear the warehouses full of 2nds. In fact more 2nds were sold than original new units. Marantz pumped them out for prices that were less than some of their better lower powered current units and that killed sales of their better pieces. I could sell a 2270 for the price of a 2230 or the 2245 each which was a better unit in sound and design.

All that said, the 2270 for these reasons was the best selling Marantz receiver and hence why today there are so many around. The concept was well thought out with the right power, and a balanced preamp and tuner, all the potential of a really good unit. Only the final component spec and cost cutting hurt it but even with that it did acheive Marantz planned goal, make a high volume selling receiver at a lower pricepoint than Marantz of old would have. Oh, btw for you 2270 lovers, there was a prototype of a 2270 based unit with o'scope since the 2270 was envisioned in early design to be successor to the 19. When it did not happen, the 19 then went offshore for assembly.

 

[SoCal Sam]

And we all know "manufacturer's rated power ain't mean nothing... So what is his purpose? Trying to inflate inferior models?

An FTC rating means something. A power rating for 1 Khz means nothing. Do you have the FTC ratings for the above listed Marantz?

 

[Tropical]

No I don't. Do these Marantz have FTC ratings or just Power at 1khz?

 

[alexkerhead]

The 2270 was a great marketing success but these things were poorly designed having components that were only marginal in spec and were terribly unstable into 4 ohms. Technology itself is not the mark of a good or bad unit or design but when the technology is flawed then it can be. I'd rather have a capacitive based output design that is well done than a capacitiveless design that is unstable. Cap based design BTW actually are quite good being and many sound better than later designs.

As for sound the 2270 IMHO was without detail, muddy, flabby and missing almost everything that Saul Marantz strove to make as the signature Marantz sound.

I have to respectfully disagree with you Brian, the sound of my personal 2270 is clear and sharp while remaining warm.

I think my 2265B sounds better, but the 2270 is not junk, not by a long shot.

I ran my 4x L100s on my 2270 for a month, that is a load of 4ohm per channel with dips to 2ohm from the 123A woofers per pair.
Unit ran perfectly stable, who knows, I might have gotten one that was a later revised unit, but I know mine doesn't have the problems you state.

 

[vintagestereo]

Inflated wattage for many receivers from 1980's till now. Your ranking is therefore wrong.

Those are all Manantz's rated specs for the Receivers listed: 20 Hz -20 kHz, RMS into 8 ohms, at less than 0.1% THD per the Owner's Manuals and/or Buyer's Guides. Not inflated by any means. I know that AK member grateful benchtested his TA-150 and confirmed that it put out at least 150 wpc RMS into 8 Ohms 20-20 kHz.

Many people who knock the 80's Marantz gear have never actually listened to it. I have and I have compared it with the earlier gear. And, frankly, it does just fine. While most people would prefer the sound of the earlier gear, the overall differences are rather subtle and not as dramatic as some people's comment would lead you to believe. And, if you don't have one of those earlier models to compare it to directly, to sound quality is eminently satisfying you'll never notice the difference.

Best of all, because of all the knocks they've taken the 80's Marantz TOTL units are "dirt cheap", which is great for audio lovers on a budget.

 

[SoCal Sam]

No I don't. Do these Marantz have FTC ratings or just Power at 1khz?

I have documentation for the 2500 only. It is has an FTC rating of 250 wpc into 8 ohm and an FTC 330 into 4 ohm. The 2600 is 300/400 FTC rated.

 

[bully]

ALL STEREO amplifier claimed output MUST be made pursuant to FTC regulations regarding the power output of stereo amps. That means preconditioning at 1/3-rated output for one hour, then measured from 20-20K Hz, continuously at within rated distortion, both channels driven.

 

[vintagestereo]

ALL STEREO amplifier claimed output MUST be made pursuant to FTC regulations regarding the power output of stereo amps. That means preconditioning at 1/3-rated output for one hour, then measured from 20-20K Hz, continuously at within rated distortion, both channels driven.

Bully -- That FTC Reg has been in effect since about 1975 and applied to every manufacturer selling their wares in the US. So, it clearly applies to Marantz's 70's and 80's Receivers. The power standings I posted are completely accurate based upon Marantz's own published specifications.

I've posted Marantz's specs for the TA170AV and TA135AV below.