Which is better?

[bd1886]

I tend to appreciate a receivers signature sound (no matter where it may fall within sonics) and spend time with them all initially. The only aspect of a "signature sound" I have little tolerance for is "low watt thin"....all you can expect is loud and thin, and for me it has not panned out one time. (Even modern digital/theater cheapos trump that.)

For me too, the warm full bodied sound easily wins out, but "that" sig sound in a unit, seems to be the most susceptible to requiring service to not sound "the worst of warm"/ = ing muddy. Closest I have to each of those models is a Marantz 2238b and a Technics SA-700 (both heavily serviced) and at normal listening levels/rock,jazz,blues,county, the Marantz wins as "warm" suits me with this.
Legs stretched listening through good modern speaks, wider range of music, and wanting to fill a space.....my son won't give me back my SA-700 (as it makes some 1996 JBL GSE-1000vs' produce). Saying Technics has "no warm" is not entirely true either....a comparison to an ocean of modern BPC sets this straight.

I'm only guessing but the Marantz would probably be better for me (once serviced) but I'm not you and have not heard an SA-500 to see how it "busts out of thin" when demands are put to it. Clear is not thin when a rig still lays it all out inside a sound stage.

 

[east electro]

Marantz 2240 is a bad machine next to today's standards but also to that time's standards ... way too complicated from many aspects suffers from many issues like excessive crosstalk and bad channel separation .

still the Marantz will produce wonderful colors and sonics will be unbeatable compared to even modern equipment . Still its a sound that is dear but not real .

keep in mind that many of those amplifier was overcomplicated by all means ..break them in parts and will sound far better .

Point is that with the Marantz this all conversation is hopeless if teh amplifier hasn't been repaired recapped and/ or upgraded . If not kaboom is just a question of time .

Kind regards
Sakis

 

[05SRTguy]

Some interesting perspectives here. I really appreciate all of your input.

I can't currently form my own opinion via comparison as the Marantz has an issue with the left channel. It will only put out sound at higher volumes, too high to be enjoyable. At lower volumes, it just cuts out.

As to the sound of the Tech, that's a bit tough to put into words, but one word I would not use to describe it's sound is "Thin". It has definitely got some punch to it through my modern Dali Lektor 3's. I do note that the volume increases quite rapidly from one notch of the volume knob to the next. The tech also has issues too. When I first power it on, the sound is quiet and distorted until I get up to listening volume. Then I can turn it back down and it doesn't cut out.

 

[bd1886]

Sounds like that SA-500 is worthy to get running smoothly then! (Both are and just investigating for a save is great anyways.) I love the lights on the Tech gear too.

 

[rlisin]

It seems that both your receivers basically need the same thing: thorough contacts cleaning. Cutting out like that is a common fault on older electronics (even on 10 years old gear) caused by oxidized contacts.

In both cases especially the relays (these are a bugger to open, but they are the most likely culprits, especially on Technics), speaker on/off switches, tape monitor switches, source selector switches, loudness switches need cleaning with deoxit (but best to clean all switches and pots while you're at it).
In the case of Marantz, also the power switch and pre out/main in inputs.

You can do it yourself, its a non-invassive procedure (mostly, opening releays can get invassive). All you need is a can of contact cleaner and a screwdriver. There is a thread on deoxit cleaning here on AK that will guide you through it.

With Marantz, actually start with connecting pre out and main in with an RCA cable, it might do the trick.