Vintage Marantz 1060 vs. The Modern PM6004
- Thread starter racingkaherv
- Start date
racingkaherv
Member
I'll do a comparison of all three once these burn in and I have time to properly A/B them.
Well I have had the PM8004 for two days. I have about 5 hours of listening time on it. I do think it sounds better now than the first few hours of play time. I can't use a bunch of florid rhetoric to describe what I'm hearing. I can say it is a very sweet sounding integrated amp. Base is full, treble and midrange is very sweet. It seems to have plenty of grunt power although I haven't really listened at loud levels, yet. I've only played CDs so far. It's paired up with a pair of ADS L1290/2 speakers. As far as the comparison to the Marantz 1060, I'm not sure I can make a fair comparison. I no longer have it to do a side-by-side. Also it was used with JBL L100 Century speakers and in a different room/house. I do recall the 1060 as having a superb sound, though. Especially after it was fully recapped, cleaned and adjusted. I had a pretty good collection of vintage gear as far as amps, preamps, receivers etc. and I don't think any of them sounded better than the little 1060. Wish I still had it.
kmburkhart
www.collectingspace.net
This is a great thread - thanks for all the input! I am not sure if I want to have my Marantz 2265b serviced, it's in need of a recap and cleaning, as well as likely needing a few pots replaced. I am really considering the PM6004 or PM8004 - with the post above, I am really leaning towards the 8004.
racingkaherv
Member
So... The PM8004 has about 100 hours burn-in and it sounds quite different now. The lows have settled down and the mids and highs have opened up nicely. Unfortunately, the PM6004 only has about 30 hours on it, but it will have to do for our purposes.
First, for the comparison I am only using CDs. (I know... kinda lame, but hooking up the turntable on top of this stack is problematic.) I am running a Marantz CD5004 (which sounds a little bright) into the amps, then into Epos Epic 2s, which tend to be a little forward above 7k Hz, but these are not as bright as Epos typically are.
I ran the 1060 against the PM6004 and the PM8004. The 1060 is in great shape, but does need a recap, which will obviously affect the results quite a bit. I dialed the midrange back a notch and the bass forward a notch on the 1060 since those old capacitors can thin things out a bit. My buddy (who is a professional audio engineer & mixer) and I determined that was about as close to "flat" as we could get. The PM6004 and the PM8804 were left in "Source Direct" mode. Yes... it makes a big difference having it on. I was surprised at how much so.
My room also has a bass hang right around 60 Hz (and consequently 120 Hz, 240 Hz, etc.) due to the room dimensions. Not much I can do about that (short of putting in bass traps). This will also come into play.
I tried to stick to recordings that people might know. I used Miles Davis' "So What" from Kind of Blue , Fleetwood Mac's "Sara" from Tusk, Brian Eno's 2/2 from Music for Airports, and Karajan's recording of Beethoven's 3rd (the digital DG recording from the 80s, not from the classic DG cycle in the 60s. For analysis purposes, this recording is more revealing.)
"So What"
1060: Although it sounds like a big room, you are right there up front. The horns are basically blowing in your ear. There is room reverb, but it's more after the note, not present from the initial attack. The bass is not the most detailed, but it's there and musical.
PM6004: More sense of depth. You can tell just how big the old Columbia studio that was previously a Greek Orthodox church really is. The musicians sound further back. While the detail is nice, the sound seems a smidge analytical.
PM8004: Wow. This thing has a gorgeous tone. It is much darker than the PM6004 and does not feel analytical at all. You can tell there is so much more current driving into the speakers. There is also way more information in the low frequencies than the other two (which can sometimes be problematic in this room). There is a real organic quality to the sound without giving up a sense of depth. That being said, right when the head ends and Paul Chambers really digs into the notes at the beginning of Miles solo, the bottom end got a bit burly (again, probably my room acting up). This thing is dark, but I'm into it. It's quite seductive.
"Sara"
1060: The drums are right up front. The mix sounds amazing. You can't help but feel like this album was made to be listened to on something like the 1060. (Duh...)
PM6004: Way, way, way more depth and soundstage. Everything is pushed back and you can hear the reverb and delay tails all over the place. Nice separation of God knows how many tracks they put on this song. The soundstage is huge, but seems to lack a real anchor (if that makes any sense).
PM8004: It seems to split the difference between the two and feels great. There is that warmth and hump to the drums that the 1060 just nails, yet there is a much bigger sense of space. While this sounds fantastic, and I love it, the mix feels most right on the 1060. (I could go on, but I will spare you.)
"2/2"
1060: I always think using recordings of analog synths can be very revealing of detail and how a component is voiced, sometimes more so than strings. The 1060 actual did not shine as much as I had hoped here. It is warm and inviting, but you cannot hear the detail and the grain in the synth sounds. The contrast between the different textures on each synth is not as apparent as the other two amps.
PM6004:
You can hear the texture of each voice nicely, but it does not put me right there. I spent a lot of time with one of those giant patch-bay Moog's in college and this doesn't quite get it. Still, it's pretty darn close.
PM8004:
Jaw on the ground. It may be a TOUCH dark, but oh my, this thing nails it, nails it, nails it.
Beethoven's 3rd:
1060: Sounds great, but the orchestra does sound like they are sitting on top of each other a bit compared to the modern amps, but, I kinda like it. IT is very engaging.
PM6004: Very bright with this recording. Interestingly, the PM6004 seems to be the least forgiving of the three in the high frequencies; however, this is a bright recording and it's not obnoxious on the 6004, just very... detailed up there. Nice dynamics, but the basses seem to be lacking a certain something in the upper bass/low mid area.
PM8004: This thing has tons of power. The dynamics are unreal. Almost problematic really, considering I live in an apartment. These crescendos sweep and swoon. The basses are sawing away at you. Again, it is dark, but it is really working with this recording.
My two cents:
The 1060, I have to say, sounds pretty nice compared to these two modern receivers. Its charm is that it puts everything very up front and sounds very natural and organic. That being said, it does not have the same sense of depth or detail as the modern stuff. It's most notable on the tale end of notes. On those old jazz recordings, you can't hear the slight rattle of cat gut stings when the note is released on an upright bass as well as you can with the more modern stuff. It nails the transients in a great way, but the reverb and delays at the end of notes/hits are somewhat absent. This can add an intimacy, though, particularly with jazz and rock.
The PM6004 is great, but I think if I had to choose between spending money on the 6004 or getting the 1060 recapped, I would get the 1060 recapped. What the 1060 does right, it really does right. I can live with a smaller soundstage and a little less detail if I feel the music sounds more organic and moves me more.
Now, the PM8004. (Thanks Art K. for insisting that I check it out!) What can I say? I really love this thing. It is a bit boomy in my room. Sadly, turning off the direct source mode to dial back the bass looses some of the magic. The bass is intense on this thing. When I buy one of these, and I will get one, I might have to look for a speaker cable that is a bit leaner in the low end. (I never thought I would say that.)
Anyway, sorry for such a long post. Just thought I would share my observations.
First, for the comparison I am only using CDs. (I know... kinda lame, but hooking up the turntable on top of this stack is problematic.) I am running a Marantz CD5004 (which sounds a little bright) into the amps, then into Epos Epic 2s, which tend to be a little forward above 7k Hz, but these are not as bright as Epos typically are.
I ran the 1060 against the PM6004 and the PM8004. The 1060 is in great shape, but does need a recap, which will obviously affect the results quite a bit. I dialed the midrange back a notch and the bass forward a notch on the 1060 since those old capacitors can thin things out a bit. My buddy (who is a professional audio engineer & mixer) and I determined that was about as close to "flat" as we could get. The PM6004 and the PM8804 were left in "Source Direct" mode. Yes... it makes a big difference having it on. I was surprised at how much so.
My room also has a bass hang right around 60 Hz (and consequently 120 Hz, 240 Hz, etc.) due to the room dimensions. Not much I can do about that (short of putting in bass traps). This will also come into play.
I tried to stick to recordings that people might know. I used Miles Davis' "So What" from Kind of Blue , Fleetwood Mac's "Sara" from Tusk, Brian Eno's 2/2 from Music for Airports, and Karajan's recording of Beethoven's 3rd (the digital DG recording from the 80s, not from the classic DG cycle in the 60s. For analysis purposes, this recording is more revealing.)
"So What"
1060: Although it sounds like a big room, you are right there up front. The horns are basically blowing in your ear. There is room reverb, but it's more after the note, not present from the initial attack. The bass is not the most detailed, but it's there and musical.
PM6004: More sense of depth. You can tell just how big the old Columbia studio that was previously a Greek Orthodox church really is. The musicians sound further back. While the detail is nice, the sound seems a smidge analytical.
PM8004: Wow. This thing has a gorgeous tone. It is much darker than the PM6004 and does not feel analytical at all. You can tell there is so much more current driving into the speakers. There is also way more information in the low frequencies than the other two (which can sometimes be problematic in this room). There is a real organic quality to the sound without giving up a sense of depth. That being said, right when the head ends and Paul Chambers really digs into the notes at the beginning of Miles solo, the bottom end got a bit burly (again, probably my room acting up). This thing is dark, but I'm into it. It's quite seductive.
"Sara"
1060: The drums are right up front. The mix sounds amazing. You can't help but feel like this album was made to be listened to on something like the 1060. (Duh...)
PM6004: Way, way, way more depth and soundstage. Everything is pushed back and you can hear the reverb and delay tails all over the place. Nice separation of God knows how many tracks they put on this song. The soundstage is huge, but seems to lack a real anchor (if that makes any sense).
PM8004: It seems to split the difference between the two and feels great. There is that warmth and hump to the drums that the 1060 just nails, yet there is a much bigger sense of space. While this sounds fantastic, and I love it, the mix feels most right on the 1060. (I could go on, but I will spare you.)
"2/2"
1060: I always think using recordings of analog synths can be very revealing of detail and how a component is voiced, sometimes more so than strings. The 1060 actual did not shine as much as I had hoped here. It is warm and inviting, but you cannot hear the detail and the grain in the synth sounds. The contrast between the different textures on each synth is not as apparent as the other two amps.
PM6004:
You can hear the texture of each voice nicely, but it does not put me right there. I spent a lot of time with one of those giant patch-bay Moog's in college and this doesn't quite get it. Still, it's pretty darn close.
PM8004:
Jaw on the ground. It may be a TOUCH dark, but oh my, this thing nails it, nails it, nails it.
Beethoven's 3rd:
1060: Sounds great, but the orchestra does sound like they are sitting on top of each other a bit compared to the modern amps, but, I kinda like it. IT is very engaging.
PM6004: Very bright with this recording. Interestingly, the PM6004 seems to be the least forgiving of the three in the high frequencies; however, this is a bright recording and it's not obnoxious on the 6004, just very... detailed up there. Nice dynamics, but the basses seem to be lacking a certain something in the upper bass/low mid area.
PM8004: This thing has tons of power. The dynamics are unreal. Almost problematic really, considering I live in an apartment. These crescendos sweep and swoon. The basses are sawing away at you. Again, it is dark, but it is really working with this recording.
My two cents:
The 1060, I have to say, sounds pretty nice compared to these two modern receivers. Its charm is that it puts everything very up front and sounds very natural and organic. That being said, it does not have the same sense of depth or detail as the modern stuff. It's most notable on the tale end of notes. On those old jazz recordings, you can't hear the slight rattle of cat gut stings when the note is released on an upright bass as well as you can with the more modern stuff. It nails the transients in a great way, but the reverb and delays at the end of notes/hits are somewhat absent. This can add an intimacy, though, particularly with jazz and rock.
The PM6004 is great, but I think if I had to choose between spending money on the 6004 or getting the 1060 recapped, I would get the 1060 recapped. What the 1060 does right, it really does right. I can live with a smaller soundstage and a little less detail if I feel the music sounds more organic and moves me more.
Now, the PM8004. (Thanks Art K. for insisting that I check it out!) What can I say? I really love this thing. It is a bit boomy in my room. Sadly, turning off the direct source mode to dial back the bass looses some of the magic. The bass is intense on this thing. When I buy one of these, and I will get one, I might have to look for a speaker cable that is a bit leaner in the low end. (I never thought I would say that.)
Anyway, sorry for such a long post. Just thought I would share my observations.
racingkaherv
Member
Oh... And my girlfriend immediately loved the PM8004, hands down. Solange's "Bad Girls" never sounded better in our apartment.
kman77
Member
thank you for the review
I just bought a pm8004 about a month ago
and so far it seems to be a good purchase for me
i am not an audiophile in the way some folks are
I just like to listen to music
my other stereo amp is a 1977 yamaha CA-810 that needs some
work.
I also am using a CD5004 and paradigm atom speakers in this set-up.
Last night i was listening to Dire Straits ( 1st album ) at a fairly low volume
and I was amazed at the dynamic range at such a low volume setting.
I was really happy with the sound quality.
I just bought a pm8004 about a month ago
and so far it seems to be a good purchase for me
i am not an audiophile in the way some folks are
I just like to listen to music
my other stereo amp is a 1977 yamaha CA-810 that needs some
work.
I also am using a CD5004 and paradigm atom speakers in this set-up.
Last night i was listening to Dire Straits ( 1st album ) at a fairly low volume
and I was amazed at the dynamic range at such a low volume setting.
I was really happy with the sound quality.
Brian
An Old Geezer
Keep the 1060 even if you sideline it and when your penny jar is full do a recap. It is worth keeping just because the preamp is that good. The amp section while not up to say the power amp of the H-K 402 is nothing to sneeze at as far as amps in integrated amps go.
The 1060 is just one of those amps that should be in everyone's inventory as a permanent piece.
The 1060 is just one of those amps that should be in everyone's inventory as a permanent piece.
captouch
Addicted Member
This is a bit of a sidetrack to the PM6004/PM8004 discussion, but pertains to Brian's comment, and somewhat to the general question of where one could put a given amount of $.
I bought a 1060 and will start recapping it next week, based on BK's input from his recap, though it won't use as many film caps to start as I decided to use some Silmic II's in certain spots where I already had those value caps on hand.
Part of the reason I bought it, besides being curious about the Marantz sound and it being a classic piece, was I already had a HK 730. I had read multiple times that the preamp section wasn't up to the amp section in the HK 730 (and the A402 and 730 use similar/same amp portions I believe), and the amp section of the 1060 wasn't quite on the same level as its preamp.
So I thought I'd try combining the two (1060 preamp out into 730 main amp in). I did that briefly, with the result that the 1060 sound signature was definitely evident - i.e. it sounded more like the 1060 on its own than the 730 on its own, but I didn't do an extensive comparison between the 1060 alone vs the 1060/730 combo and it was only at fairly low volume levels. I'll probably do more comparisons before I start the recap. I may even try the 730 pre into the 1060 amp in to see how that sounds - haven't tried that yet!
Eventually, I'll recap at least the amp portion of the 730 as well. Then compare again, each component alone and combined.
How it relates back to modern pieces and options/choices. . .The cost of these two vintage pieces, plus the components to do a total recap, would be on a similar $ level as the PM6004 I believe, if you don't count your own time to do the recap. And the power levels would be similar as well. How they would compare sonically, no idea! But it would be fun to do that someday if I ever found someone local with the PM6004.
Brian
An Old Geezer
I have a 630 and the preamp just does not measure up. Keep a Soundcraftsman pre/Eq on hand to use with the amp of the 630. The amp in it is worth having the 630 just for it, about the least expensive very decent power amp out there. The tuners while not outstanding gets the job done on local stations.
Sorry if off topic.
Sorry if off topic.
mozcho
Well-Known Member
It's 7 years..... Would like to know the follow-up. Me too have a 1060, and considering is it sufficient to be used a s a pre to feed a Mac MC2205, or should I look for a better pre-amp.
mozcho
Well-Known Member
Great comparisons! Did you sell the 1060 in the end?
captouch
Addicted Member
It’s been too long for me to have any distinct memories honestly. I don’t have either piece anymore, but not because either of them were subpar - I just had too much gear.
I would just use the 1060 as a preamp to your 2205 and opportunistically look for a well regarded, well priced dedicated preamp. Sometimes you stumble across a piece that’s priced low enough that you can buy it, try it out, and sell it on for the same price or even make a profit, so the risk is low.
I can tell you two affordable older preamps I’ve really liked in the past: Bryson 1B and Forte Model 2. Both were priced in the $250-400 range, had excellent phono stages, and compared really well with both a higher end tube preamp y(Modwright SWL 9.0) and my current recapped McIntosh C35.
In the end, I settled on the C35 more for the features (5-band EQ, variable loudness, remote control) and cosmetics (matched my 2255 better). The sound of the C35, Bryson, and Forte were all excellent and essentially indistinguishable unless you were doing critical listening and really straining to hear differences.
I did try to use my Mac 1900 as a preamp as well, and it wasn’t quite as refined sounding as the others, but I don’t recall now if that was pre or post recap. But I do tend to think that a well designed dedicated preamp will on the average tend to beat the preamp section of a good receiver/integrated unless the preamp section happens to be exceptional.
On casual listening, it may not be night and day, but some differences at the margins.