Options

Post your stereo system!

1373840424353

Comments

  • Options
    BIGDaddyWilBIGDaddyWil Michigan Posts: 3,052
    ^^^^ Keep us posted with the repair/rebuild.
    Pine Knob Music Theatre - Jul 31, 1992 Crisler Arena - Mar 20, 1994
    Summerfest - Jul 09, 1995*Savage Hall - Sep 22, 1996The Palace of Auburn Hills-Aug 23, 1998 Breslin Center- Aug 18, 1998,The Palace of Auburn Hills-Oct 07, 2000 DTE Energy Theatre-Jun5,2003,DTE Energy Music Theatre - Jun 26, 2003Sports Arena - Oct 02, 2004 Van Andel Arena - May 19, 2006Palace of Auburn Hills-May 22, 2006 Quicken Loans Arena-May 09, 2010
    10-16-2014 Detroit
  • Options
    dudemandudeman Posts: 3,011
    Will do! I got the pots and switches cleaned up and working smoothly today. The next step will be to get it on the bench to start checking components. 

    Surprisingly, everything is quite clean inside. Nothing broken or missing and all of the fuse lamps still work. Sometimes the plastic piece around the fuse lamps partially melts due to the heat. This one is intact with no melted spots.

    Based on that, I don't think this thing was used very much.
    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • Options
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    dudeman said:
    I'm going to look at a restored Marantz 2275 today. Hopefully it will be coming home with me!
    Isn't this a 3000 amp?
    People seem to be paying that much for them these days. Five or ten years ago, maybe $800.00 to $1,000.00.

    The vintage gear market has gone a little crazy. 
    That's what I'm wondering,  whether the market has cooled like other hobby markets.  
    The old stuff is cooler to loo at but the newer stuff has to be better, no?

    I've read so many damn articles that claim one way or the other.
    Too many variables to empirically say one way or the other. Most consumer grade audio equipment nowadays is designed to be sold at particular price points and is made out of sub-assemblies of components and assembled by machinery. 

    Much of the old gear was hand wired using discrete components. While it is true that consistency between electronic components is better today than it was in the 70's, higher end companies took the time to sort and match the parts that were used. 

    There is good stuff and there is crap from both eras.
    Yeah that's dead on.  Further,  they spend a lot of money on the certifications for Dolby, DTX, etc. And they try to cram as much tech into a box and price it at 500-1000. So the compromise is in the amplifier stage,  I think.  

    When you get into high end,  I believe modern sounds better.  For me my McIntosh setup or a Luxman I had for a while were much better than my Marantz 2245. But in that 1500 range,  I haven't found anything that is better than the Marantz for sound quality.  In fact,  I demoed that well regarded Cambridge Cx model that's about$1300. No DAC, pure analog and the Marantz was superior.  
    That's it for me, too. I think you have to spend a lot of money for high end, well designed and built modern gear to get the best performance. Most "average" new stuff is outclassed by restored, good quality vintage stuff. There is definitely new stuff that beats old stuff, it just costs a lot of money.

    For the money I'm willing to invest, I gravitate toward the vintage side. Part of it is that I feel some obligation to preserve the old gear for the next people who might appreciate it. I also really love the tactile operations of those balanced tuner dials, mechanical switches and heavy duty, huge pots!

    Also, I think there is such a thing as going too far with regard to sound quality. I want my entire music collection to sound good and that is the case for me with my current vintage stereo. I know people with super expensive, very high-end equipment that will reveal every little detail. Those guys struggle with finding music that they want to listen to because so much commercially produced music falls short of their stereo's capabilities. They pretty much play test records, jazz and classical. 

    Listening to rock and roll on some of those systems is painful!
    That last sentence, purists say to put on a good classical or jazz record to hear the sound of your system.
    Jazz is the best, along with some classical.  But dudeman is dead on again.  I have what would be considered an audiophile setup and there are certainly some records and recordings that I just don’t listen to because my system can be too revealing.  Take something like the Avocado record by PJ.  Sounds like total ass on my high end system.  But, by contrast, play Can’t Buy A Thrill by the Dan with the new AP release and the sound is so exquisite.  Or Bach’s Unaccompanied Cello Suites.  So there are downsides for going up the chain other than the price.  And I also like the sweetening inherent in the Marantz sound. 
    Most modern records aren't meant to be heard like that.  Remember when albums were made and all the highs were too high because they were produced to be heard through a computers shitty speaker?

    PJ I know is a huge offender of poor recording for record playback.
  • Options
    mrussel1 said:
    I totally agree with you guys above! Great discussion! I'm a vintage guy, myself.  Also so true about jazz albums. They sing beautifully on my Pioneer system. But so do all of the audiophile quality pressings. Not pictured, is my second turntable. My trusty Music Hall 2.2 mmf. It's never let me down. But I would like to upgrade in the $1500 range, for a replacement turntable.
    Cheers!
    Nice looking vintage system! Is that an SX-1250?
    Actually, it's SX-950.  The turntable is PL-570, the cassette deck is a Pioneer CT-F9191, with Pioneer HPM 60 speakers. All from 1977, purchased from a co-worker about a dozen years ago.  The speakers were found on Craigslist for $80 in near mint condition, around 2012. I paid my co-worker $350 for the bundle.  Unbelievable these days.

    I have the HPM100's in the 200W version.  Those things killed when I cranked the volume up.  You got to feel the music!

    Nice setup.
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,770
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    dudeman said:
    I'm going to look at a restored Marantz 2275 today. Hopefully it will be coming home with me!
    Isn't this a 3000 amp?
    People seem to be paying that much for them these days. Five or ten years ago, maybe $800.00 to $1,000.00.

    The vintage gear market has gone a little crazy. 
    That's what I'm wondering,  whether the market has cooled like other hobby markets.  
    The old stuff is cooler to loo at but the newer stuff has to be better, no?

    I've read so many damn articles that claim one way or the other.
    Too many variables to empirically say one way or the other. Most consumer grade audio equipment nowadays is designed to be sold at particular price points and is made out of sub-assemblies of components and assembled by machinery. 

    Much of the old gear was hand wired using discrete components. While it is true that consistency between electronic components is better today than it was in the 70's, higher end companies took the time to sort and match the parts that were used. 

    There is good stuff and there is crap from both eras.
    Yeah that's dead on.  Further,  they spend a lot of money on the certifications for Dolby, DTX, etc. And they try to cram as much tech into a box and price it at 500-1000. So the compromise is in the amplifier stage,  I think.  

    When you get into high end,  I believe modern sounds better.  For me my McIntosh setup or a Luxman I had for a while were much better than my Marantz 2245. But in that 1500 range,  I haven't found anything that is better than the Marantz for sound quality.  In fact,  I demoed that well regarded Cambridge Cx model that's about$1300. No DAC, pure analog and the Marantz was superior.  
    That's it for me, too. I think you have to spend a lot of money for high end, well designed and built modern gear to get the best performance. Most "average" new stuff is outclassed by restored, good quality vintage stuff. There is definitely new stuff that beats old stuff, it just costs a lot of money.

    For the money I'm willing to invest, I gravitate toward the vintage side. Part of it is that I feel some obligation to preserve the old gear for the next people who might appreciate it. I also really love the tactile operations of those balanced tuner dials, mechanical switches and heavy duty, huge pots!

    Also, I think there is such a thing as going too far with regard to sound quality. I want my entire music collection to sound good and that is the case for me with my current vintage stereo. I know people with super expensive, very high-end equipment that will reveal every little detail. Those guys struggle with finding music that they want to listen to because so much commercially produced music falls short of their stereo's capabilities. They pretty much play test records, jazz and classical. 

    Listening to rock and roll on some of those systems is painful!
    That last sentence, purists say to put on a good classical or jazz record to hear the sound of your system.
    Jazz is the best, along with some classical.  But dudeman is dead on again.  I have what would be considered an audiophile setup and there are certainly some records and recordings that I just don’t listen to because my system can be too revealing.  Take something like the Avocado record by PJ.  Sounds like total ass on my high end system.  But, by contrast, play Can’t Buy A Thrill by the Dan with the new AP release and the sound is so exquisite.  Or Bach’s Unaccompanied Cello Suites.  So there are downsides for going up the chain other than the price.  And I also like the sweetening inherent in the Marantz sound. 
    Most modern records aren't meant to be heard like that.  Remember when albums were made and all the highs were too high because they were produced to be heard through a computers shitty speaker?

    PJ I know is a huge offender of poor recording for record playback.
    PJ was terrible, particularly Avocado.  There was also a time when the high fidelity records would skip because the needle couldn't hold the low notes.  I think this was back in the 60's when most people had garbage TTs. 

    The great thing about jazz is that the records were recorded properly and the tapes cared for.  So now you can hand those tapes over to someone like Ryan Smith and Kevin Grey and they can make wonderful, modern versions that blow you away.  The same can't be said for the music that was recorded digitally starting in the 80's.  
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,770
    mrussel1 said:
    I totally agree with you guys above! Great discussion! I'm a vintage guy, myself.  Also so true about jazz albums. They sing beautifully on my Pioneer system. But so do all of the audiophile quality pressings. Not pictured, is my second turntable. My trusty Music Hall 2.2 mmf. It's never let me down. But I would like to upgrade in the $1500 range, for a replacement turntable.
    Cheers!
    Nice looking vintage system! Is that an SX-1250?
    Actually, it's SX-950.  The turntable is PL-570, the cassette deck is a Pioneer CT-F9191, with Pioneer HPM 60 speakers. All from 1977, purchased from a co-worker about a dozen years ago.  The speakers were found on Craigslist for $80 in near mint condition, around 2012. I paid my co-worker $350 for the bundle.  Unbelievable these days.

    That's a crazy deal.  I also didn't realize how large the 950 was.  85 watts is no joke for that era. 
  • Options
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    dudeman said:
    I'm going to look at a restored Marantz 2275 today. Hopefully it will be coming home with me!
    Isn't this a 3000 amp?
    People seem to be paying that much for them these days. Five or ten years ago, maybe $800.00 to $1,000.00.

    The vintage gear market has gone a little crazy. 
    That's what I'm wondering,  whether the market has cooled like other hobby markets.  
    The old stuff is cooler to loo at but the newer stuff has to be better, no?

    I've read so many damn articles that claim one way or the other.
    Too many variables to empirically say one way or the other. Most consumer grade audio equipment nowadays is designed to be sold at particular price points and is made out of sub-assemblies of components and assembled by machinery. 

    Much of the old gear was hand wired using discrete components. While it is true that consistency between electronic components is better today than it was in the 70's, higher end companies took the time to sort and match the parts that were used. 

    There is good stuff and there is crap from both eras.
    Yeah that's dead on.  Further,  they spend a lot of money on the certifications for Dolby, DTX, etc. And they try to cram as much tech into a box and price it at 500-1000. So the compromise is in the amplifier stage,  I think.  

    When you get into high end,  I believe modern sounds better.  For me my McIntosh setup or a Luxman I had for a while were much better than my Marantz 2245. But in that 1500 range,  I haven't found anything that is better than the Marantz for sound quality.  In fact,  I demoed that well regarded Cambridge Cx model that's about$1300. No DAC, pure analog and the Marantz was superior.  
    That's it for me, too. I think you have to spend a lot of money for high end, well designed and built modern gear to get the best performance. Most "average" new stuff is outclassed by restored, good quality vintage stuff. There is definitely new stuff that beats old stuff, it just costs a lot of money.

    For the money I'm willing to invest, I gravitate toward the vintage side. Part of it is that I feel some obligation to preserve the old gear for the next people who might appreciate it. I also really love the tactile operations of those balanced tuner dials, mechanical switches and heavy duty, huge pots!

    Also, I think there is such a thing as going too far with regard to sound quality. I want my entire music collection to sound good and that is the case for me with my current vintage stereo. I know people with super expensive, very high-end equipment that will reveal every little detail. Those guys struggle with finding music that they want to listen to because so much commercially produced music falls short of their stereo's capabilities. They pretty much play test records, jazz and classical. 

    Listening to rock and roll on some of those systems is painful!
    That last sentence, purists say to put on a good classical or jazz record to hear the sound of your system.
    Jazz is the best, along with some classical.  But dudeman is dead on again.  I have what would be considered an audiophile setup and there are certainly some records and recordings that I just don’t listen to because my system can be too revealing.  Take something like the Avocado record by PJ.  Sounds like total ass on my high end system.  But, by contrast, play Can’t Buy A Thrill by the Dan with the new AP release and the sound is so exquisite.  Or Bach’s Unaccompanied Cello Suites.  So there are downsides for going up the chain other than the price.  And I also like the sweetening inherent in the Marantz sound. 
    Most modern records aren't meant to be heard like that.  Remember when albums were made and all the highs were too high because they were produced to be heard through a computers shitty speaker?

    PJ I know is a huge offender of poor recording for record playback.
    PJ was terrible, particularly Avocado.  There was also a time when the high fidelity records would skip because the needle couldn't hold the low notes.  I think this was back in the 60's when most people had garbage TTs. 

    The great thing about jazz is that the records were recorded properly and the tapes cared for.  So now you can hand those tapes over to someone like Ryan Smith and Kevin Grey and they can make wonderful, modern versions that blow you away.  The same can't be said for the music that was recorded digitally starting in the 80's.  
    Here is to hoping that my Mono Stones box set is well done!
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,770
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    dudeman said:
    I'm going to look at a restored Marantz 2275 today. Hopefully it will be coming home with me!
    Isn't this a 3000 amp?
    People seem to be paying that much for them these days. Five or ten years ago, maybe $800.00 to $1,000.00.

    The vintage gear market has gone a little crazy. 
    That's what I'm wondering,  whether the market has cooled like other hobby markets.  
    The old stuff is cooler to loo at but the newer stuff has to be better, no?

    I've read so many damn articles that claim one way or the other.
    Too many variables to empirically say one way or the other. Most consumer grade audio equipment nowadays is designed to be sold at particular price points and is made out of sub-assemblies of components and assembled by machinery. 

    Much of the old gear was hand wired using discrete components. While it is true that consistency between electronic components is better today than it was in the 70's, higher end companies took the time to sort and match the parts that were used. 

    There is good stuff and there is crap from both eras.
    Yeah that's dead on.  Further,  they spend a lot of money on the certifications for Dolby, DTX, etc. And they try to cram as much tech into a box and price it at 500-1000. So the compromise is in the amplifier stage,  I think.  

    When you get into high end,  I believe modern sounds better.  For me my McIntosh setup or a Luxman I had for a while were much better than my Marantz 2245. But in that 1500 range,  I haven't found anything that is better than the Marantz for sound quality.  In fact,  I demoed that well regarded Cambridge Cx model that's about$1300. No DAC, pure analog and the Marantz was superior.  
    That's it for me, too. I think you have to spend a lot of money for high end, well designed and built modern gear to get the best performance. Most "average" new stuff is outclassed by restored, good quality vintage stuff. There is definitely new stuff that beats old stuff, it just costs a lot of money.

    For the money I'm willing to invest, I gravitate toward the vintage side. Part of it is that I feel some obligation to preserve the old gear for the next people who might appreciate it. I also really love the tactile operations of those balanced tuner dials, mechanical switches and heavy duty, huge pots!

    Also, I think there is such a thing as going too far with regard to sound quality. I want my entire music collection to sound good and that is the case for me with my current vintage stereo. I know people with super expensive, very high-end equipment that will reveal every little detail. Those guys struggle with finding music that they want to listen to because so much commercially produced music falls short of their stereo's capabilities. They pretty much play test records, jazz and classical. 

    Listening to rock and roll on some of those systems is painful!
    That last sentence, purists say to put on a good classical or jazz record to hear the sound of your system.
    Jazz is the best, along with some classical.  But dudeman is dead on again.  I have what would be considered an audiophile setup and there are certainly some records and recordings that I just don’t listen to because my system can be too revealing.  Take something like the Avocado record by PJ.  Sounds like total ass on my high end system.  But, by contrast, play Can’t Buy A Thrill by the Dan with the new AP release and the sound is so exquisite.  Or Bach’s Unaccompanied Cello Suites.  So there are downsides for going up the chain other than the price.  And I also like the sweetening inherent in the Marantz sound. 
    Most modern records aren't meant to be heard like that.  Remember when albums were made and all the highs were too high because they were produced to be heard through a computers shitty speaker?

    PJ I know is a huge offender of poor recording for record playback.
    PJ was terrible, particularly Avocado.  There was also a time when the high fidelity records would skip because the needle couldn't hold the low notes.  I think this was back in the 60's when most people had garbage TTs. 

    The great thing about jazz is that the records were recorded properly and the tapes cared for.  So now you can hand those tapes over to someone like Ryan Smith and Kevin Grey and they can make wonderful, modern versions that blow you away.  The same can't be said for the music that was recorded digitally starting in the 80's.  
    Here is to hoping that my Mono Stones box set is well done!
    Well the Stones tapes are trashed.  So whatever you are getting, it is going to be digital.  That's not necessarily bad if it's well done.  The question is whether those are just fold downs of the original stereo mixes.  Because they are early 60's, I'm guessing they were recorded in mono and stereo, but that would be interesting to know.  If they are just fold downs, then I would question whether they are worth it.  You can just hit a mono button on your stereo and achieve the same thing.  
  • Options
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    dudeman said:
    I'm going to look at a restored Marantz 2275 today. Hopefully it will be coming home with me!
    Isn't this a 3000 amp?
    People seem to be paying that much for them these days. Five or ten years ago, maybe $800.00 to $1,000.00.

    The vintage gear market has gone a little crazy. 
    That's what I'm wondering,  whether the market has cooled like other hobby markets.  
    The old stuff is cooler to loo at but the newer stuff has to be better, no?

    I've read so many damn articles that claim one way or the other.
    Too many variables to empirically say one way or the other. Most consumer grade audio equipment nowadays is designed to be sold at particular price points and is made out of sub-assemblies of components and assembled by machinery. 

    Much of the old gear was hand wired using discrete components. While it is true that consistency between electronic components is better today than it was in the 70's, higher end companies took the time to sort and match the parts that were used. 

    There is good stuff and there is crap from both eras.
    Yeah that's dead on.  Further,  they spend a lot of money on the certifications for Dolby, DTX, etc. And they try to cram as much tech into a box and price it at 500-1000. So the compromise is in the amplifier stage,  I think.  

    When you get into high end,  I believe modern sounds better.  For me my McIntosh setup or a Luxman I had for a while were much better than my Marantz 2245. But in that 1500 range,  I haven't found anything that is better than the Marantz for sound quality.  In fact,  I demoed that well regarded Cambridge Cx model that's about$1300. No DAC, pure analog and the Marantz was superior.  
    That's it for me, too. I think you have to spend a lot of money for high end, well designed and built modern gear to get the best performance. Most "average" new stuff is outclassed by restored, good quality vintage stuff. There is definitely new stuff that beats old stuff, it just costs a lot of money.

    For the money I'm willing to invest, I gravitate toward the vintage side. Part of it is that I feel some obligation to preserve the old gear for the next people who might appreciate it. I also really love the tactile operations of those balanced tuner dials, mechanical switches and heavy duty, huge pots!

    Also, I think there is such a thing as going too far with regard to sound quality. I want my entire music collection to sound good and that is the case for me with my current vintage stereo. I know people with super expensive, very high-end equipment that will reveal every little detail. Those guys struggle with finding music that they want to listen to because so much commercially produced music falls short of their stereo's capabilities. They pretty much play test records, jazz and classical. 

    Listening to rock and roll on some of those systems is painful!
    That last sentence, purists say to put on a good classical or jazz record to hear the sound of your system.
    Jazz is the best, along with some classical.  But dudeman is dead on again.  I have what would be considered an audiophile setup and there are certainly some records and recordings that I just don’t listen to because my system can be too revealing.  Take something like the Avocado record by PJ.  Sounds like total ass on my high end system.  But, by contrast, play Can’t Buy A Thrill by the Dan with the new AP release and the sound is so exquisite.  Or Bach’s Unaccompanied Cello Suites.  So there are downsides for going up the chain other than the price.  And I also like the sweetening inherent in the Marantz sound. 
    Most modern records aren't meant to be heard like that.  Remember when albums were made and all the highs were too high because they were produced to be heard through a computers shitty speaker?

    PJ I know is a huge offender of poor recording for record playback.
    PJ was terrible, particularly Avocado.  There was also a time when the high fidelity records would skip because the needle couldn't hold the low notes.  I think this was back in the 60's when most people had garbage TTs. 

    The great thing about jazz is that the records were recorded properly and the tapes cared for.  So now you can hand those tapes over to someone like Ryan Smith and Kevin Grey and they can make wonderful, modern versions that blow you away.  The same can't be said for the music that was recorded digitally starting in the 80's.  
    Here is to hoping that my Mono Stones box set is well done!
    Well the Stones tapes are trashed.  So whatever you are getting, it is going to be digital.  That's not necessarily bad if it's well done.  The question is whether those are just fold downs of the original stereo mixes.  Because they are early 60's, I'm guessing they were recorded in mono and stereo, but that would be interesting to know.  If they are just fold downs, then I would question whether they are worth it.  You can just hit a mono button on your stereo and achieve the same thing.  
    From a review. 

    Unlike the CDs, the analog mono masterings sound fantastic across the board. The bass and dynamics, somewhat stripped from the originals to accommodate early playback systems, is restored. The biggest change shows on the early LPs, which sounded emasculated compared to the best blues recordings of the 1950s and 1960s. Listen to a black-label original of 
    The Best Of Muddy Waters on Chess, or better yet, Lightnin’ and the Blues on Herald, and you hear that recording engineers knew how to record gut-punching bass and dynamics before the Stones came along. Such punch and immediacy has been restored by Restoration Producer Teri Landi and his team; Bob Ludwig of Gateway Mastering; and lacquer cutting at Abbey Road Studios with Sean Magee and Alex Wharton. The Rolling Stones in Mono is sourced from the original analog tapes, which were restored and then transferred to DSD from which the lacquers were cut.
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,770
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    dudeman said:
    I'm going to look at a restored Marantz 2275 today. Hopefully it will be coming home with me!
    Isn't this a 3000 amp?
    People seem to be paying that much for them these days. Five or ten years ago, maybe $800.00 to $1,000.00.

    The vintage gear market has gone a little crazy. 
    That's what I'm wondering,  whether the market has cooled like other hobby markets.  
    The old stuff is cooler to loo at but the newer stuff has to be better, no?

    I've read so many damn articles that claim one way or the other.
    Too many variables to empirically say one way or the other. Most consumer grade audio equipment nowadays is designed to be sold at particular price points and is made out of sub-assemblies of components and assembled by machinery. 

    Much of the old gear was hand wired using discrete components. While it is true that consistency between electronic components is better today than it was in the 70's, higher end companies took the time to sort and match the parts that were used. 

    There is good stuff and there is crap from both eras.
    Yeah that's dead on.  Further,  they spend a lot of money on the certifications for Dolby, DTX, etc. And they try to cram as much tech into a box and price it at 500-1000. So the compromise is in the amplifier stage,  I think.  

    When you get into high end,  I believe modern sounds better.  For me my McIntosh setup or a Luxman I had for a while were much better than my Marantz 2245. But in that 1500 range,  I haven't found anything that is better than the Marantz for sound quality.  In fact,  I demoed that well regarded Cambridge Cx model that's about$1300. No DAC, pure analog and the Marantz was superior.  
    That's it for me, too. I think you have to spend a lot of money for high end, well designed and built modern gear to get the best performance. Most "average" new stuff is outclassed by restored, good quality vintage stuff. There is definitely new stuff that beats old stuff, it just costs a lot of money.

    For the money I'm willing to invest, I gravitate toward the vintage side. Part of it is that I feel some obligation to preserve the old gear for the next people who might appreciate it. I also really love the tactile operations of those balanced tuner dials, mechanical switches and heavy duty, huge pots!

    Also, I think there is such a thing as going too far with regard to sound quality. I want my entire music collection to sound good and that is the case for me with my current vintage stereo. I know people with super expensive, very high-end equipment that will reveal every little detail. Those guys struggle with finding music that they want to listen to because so much commercially produced music falls short of their stereo's capabilities. They pretty much play test records, jazz and classical. 

    Listening to rock and roll on some of those systems is painful!
    That last sentence, purists say to put on a good classical or jazz record to hear the sound of your system.
    Jazz is the best, along with some classical.  But dudeman is dead on again.  I have what would be considered an audiophile setup and there are certainly some records and recordings that I just don’t listen to because my system can be too revealing.  Take something like the Avocado record by PJ.  Sounds like total ass on my high end system.  But, by contrast, play Can’t Buy A Thrill by the Dan with the new AP release and the sound is so exquisite.  Or Bach’s Unaccompanied Cello Suites.  So there are downsides for going up the chain other than the price.  And I also like the sweetening inherent in the Marantz sound. 
    Most modern records aren't meant to be heard like that.  Remember when albums were made and all the highs were too high because they were produced to be heard through a computers shitty speaker?

    PJ I know is a huge offender of poor recording for record playback.
    PJ was terrible, particularly Avocado.  There was also a time when the high fidelity records would skip because the needle couldn't hold the low notes.  I think this was back in the 60's when most people had garbage TTs. 

    The great thing about jazz is that the records were recorded properly and the tapes cared for.  So now you can hand those tapes over to someone like Ryan Smith and Kevin Grey and they can make wonderful, modern versions that blow you away.  The same can't be said for the music that was recorded digitally starting in the 80's.  
    Here is to hoping that my Mono Stones box set is well done!
    Well the Stones tapes are trashed.  So whatever you are getting, it is going to be digital.  That's not necessarily bad if it's well done.  The question is whether those are just fold downs of the original stereo mixes.  Because they are early 60's, I'm guessing they were recorded in mono and stereo, but that would be interesting to know.  If they are just fold downs, then I would question whether they are worth it.  You can just hit a mono button on your stereo and achieve the same thing.  
    From a review. 

    Unlike the CDs, the analog mono masterings sound fantastic across the board. The bass and dynamics, somewhat stripped from the originals to accommodate early playback systems, is restored. The biggest change shows on the early LPs, which sounded emasculated compared to the best blues recordings of the 1950s and 1960s. Listen to a black-label original of The Best Of Muddy Waters on Chess, or better yet, Lightnin’ and the Blues on Herald, and you hear that recording engineers knew how to record gut-punching bass and dynamics before the Stones came along. Such punch and immediacy has been restored by Restoration Producer Teri Landi and his team; Bob Ludwig of Gateway Mastering; and lacquer cutting at Abbey Road Studios with Sean Magee and Alex Wharton. The Rolling Stones in Mono is sourced from the original analog tapes, which were restored and then transferred to DSD from which the lacquers were cut.
    Sounds pretty good and RL doesn't work on shitty projects, so it should sound great.  It's not like you can do much better.  Getting Stones in analog means you have to go back to the originals and that's very difficult to find quality versions. 
  • Options
    dudemandudeman Posts: 3,011
    Currently waiting on a couple parts for the 2275. It needs a bias trimpot and a speaker relay. 

    I'll post pics and impressions once it's up and running. 
    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • Options
    BIGDaddyWilBIGDaddyWil Michigan Posts: 3,052
    ^^^^ Looking forward to it!!!! =)
    Pine Knob Music Theatre - Jul 31, 1992 Crisler Arena - Mar 20, 1994
    Summerfest - Jul 09, 1995*Savage Hall - Sep 22, 1996The Palace of Auburn Hills-Aug 23, 1998 Breslin Center- Aug 18, 1998,The Palace of Auburn Hills-Oct 07, 2000 DTE Energy Theatre-Jun5,2003,DTE Energy Music Theatre - Jun 26, 2003Sports Arena - Oct 02, 2004 Van Andel Arena - May 19, 2006Palace of Auburn Hills-May 22, 2006 Quicken Loans Arena-May 09, 2010
    10-16-2014 Detroit
  • Options
    dudemandudeman Posts: 3,011


    It's alive!
    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,770
    She's a beaut, Clark!  HOw does it sound and is that a 2230 with it?  

    How do you compare the sound of the two against each other?
  • Options
    BIGDaddyWilBIGDaddyWil Michigan Posts: 3,052
    Wow! Looking fantastic!
    Pine Knob Music Theatre - Jul 31, 1992 Crisler Arena - Mar 20, 1994
    Summerfest - Jul 09, 1995*Savage Hall - Sep 22, 1996The Palace of Auburn Hills-Aug 23, 1998 Breslin Center- Aug 18, 1998,The Palace of Auburn Hills-Oct 07, 2000 DTE Energy Theatre-Jun5,2003,DTE Energy Music Theatre - Jun 26, 2003Sports Arena - Oct 02, 2004 Van Andel Arena - May 19, 2006Palace of Auburn Hills-May 22, 2006 Quicken Loans Arena-May 09, 2010
    10-16-2014 Detroit
  • Options
    dudemandudeman Posts: 3,011
    mrussel1 said:
    She's a beaut, Clark!  HOw does it sound and is that a 2230 with it?  

    How do you compare the sound of the two against each other?
    The other one is a 2215b. It has been recapped and it's a nice sounding unit. Cleaner and clearer than the 2245 with less of the typical Marantz warmth. It has a nice phono stage too.

    The 2275 is sweet! Also clearer and more refined than the 2245 and it seems like it has a lot more power on tap than the rating would suggest. I plan on really digging into my music collection this weekend to see what it can do. 
    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • Options
    dudemandudeman Posts: 3,011
    Wow! Looking fantastic!
    Thanks man! I'm digging it so far.
    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,770
    dudeman said:
    mrussel1 said:
    She's a beaut, Clark!  HOw does it sound and is that a 2230 with it?  

    How do you compare the sound of the two against each other?
    The other one is a 2215b. It has been recapped and it's a nice sounding unit. Cleaner and clearer than the 2245 with less of the typical Marantz warmth. It has a nice phono stage too.

    The 2275 is sweet! Also clearer and more refined than the 2245 and it seems like it has a lot more power on tap than the rating would suggest. I plan on really digging into my music collection this weekend to see what it can do. 
    So now you have a 2215, 2245 and a 2275?  That's cool that you've got the small to large line.  Love to hear final impressions and which one you prefer.  Interesting that you say neither the 15 or 75 are as warm as the 45. 
  • Options
    dudemandudeman Posts: 3,011
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:
    mrussel1 said:
    She's a beaut, Clark!  HOw does it sound and is that a 2230 with it?  

    How do you compare the sound of the two against each other?
    The other one is a 2215b. It has been recapped and it's a nice sounding unit. Cleaner and clearer than the 2245 with less of the typical Marantz warmth. It has a nice phono stage too.

    The 2275 is sweet! Also clearer and more refined than the 2245 and it seems like it has a lot more power on tap than the rating would suggest. I plan on really digging into my music collection this weekend to see what it can do. 
    So now you have a 2215, 2245 and a 2275?  That's cool that you've got the small to large line.  Love to hear final impressions and which one you prefer.  Interesting that you say neither the 15 or 75 are as warm as the 45. 
    Yeah, those are the three. Too early to make any kind of definitive judgements on the 2275 overall but it has really impressed me right out of the gate. I am certain that it will be here long term. It handles my C-Vs admirably with rock music. Loud, clear and punchy, with bass you can feel in your colon. Haha! Still have to get more hours with different types of music but I'm thinking it will handle anything in my collection. 

    The 2215b and the 2275 came a few years after the 2245 and it seems like they were going more for transparency with their later designs as opposed to trying to get "tube-like" sound like the earlier ones. (Don't know if that's true or not, just my observation.)

    Those two still have that "Marantz sound" but a more refined version of it, if that makes sense. 

    I'm not letting go of my 2245, though. I think it might end up in a second, vinyl only system. That seems to be where it shines whereas the 2215b and 2275 are maybe a little better at resolving more detail from digital sources. 

    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,283
    edited February 2023
    dudeman said:


    It's alive!

    you got my interest piqued to once again own one of these receivers , vaguely recall it was a 2238? too many burnt brain cells..  Am coming into a decent amount of cash 2nd week of march. my excuse is , it will help me isolate the sound issue I am getting from either my 1228 or the gifted onkyo receiver.....

    Now the decision is which to shoot for.

    So if you guys would, rank the 22xx's .

     looking at 2265(b) still expensive but not like the 2275 or 2285. Intrigued by the 1+2 phono selector....
    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,770
    dudeman said:


    It's alive!

    you got my interest piqued to once again own one of these receivers , vaguely recall it was a 2238? too many burnt brain cells..  Am coming into a decent amount of cash 2nd week of march. my excuse is , it will help me isolate the sound issue I am getting from either my 1228 or the gifted onkyo receiver.....

    Now the decision is which to shoot for.

    So if you guys would, rank the 22xx's .

     looking at 2265(b) still expensive but not like the 2275 or 2285. Intrigued by the 1+2 phono selector....
     how large of a room and what kind of speakers are you running (towers vs book, resistance,  efficiency rating)


  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,283
    edited February 2023
    mrussel1 said:
    dudeman said:


    It's alive!

    you got my interest piqued to once again own one of these receivers , vaguely recall it was a 2238? too many burnt brain cells..  Am coming into a decent amount of cash 2nd week of march. my excuse is , it will help me isolate the sound issue I am getting from either my 1228 or the gifted onkyo receiver.....

    Now the decision is which to shoot for.

    So if you guys would, rank the 22xx's .

     looking at 2265(b) still expensive but not like the 2275 or 2285. Intrigued by the 1+2 phono selector....
     how large of a room and what kind of speakers are you running (towers vs book, resistance,  efficiency rating)


    usually keep it low. roughly 20 by 20. 10x8 bump out is my little stereo area.
    onkyo 4 way towers. possibly the 3 ways with 15 inch woofers that came with the set up when I got it. refoamed myself but apparently messed up the job as one can sound blown with heavy low end like Pumpkins or Soundgarden. think the center is off....
    rough drawing of room....




    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Options
    dudemandudeman Posts: 3,011
    I used to have a 2252b that was pretty sweet. Some people prefer those later models to the earlier ones. Also, I used to use a 2226b as an amp for my studio monitors. It put out clean, consistent power and it was plenty for near-field monitoring.

    Marantz added some pretty cool stuff as the receiver wars progressed. A lot of the improvements were aimed at tuner performance and increasing the wattage. 

    Of the dozen or so Marantz receivers that I've owned, I think the 2245 and 2275 would be the best matches for your room and speakers. 
    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,770
    dudeman said:
    I used to have a 2252b that was pretty sweet. Some people prefer those later models to the earlier ones. Also, I used to use a 2226b as an amp for my studio monitors. It put out clean, consistent power and it was plenty for near-field monitoring.

    Marantz added some pretty cool stuff as the receiver wars progressed. A lot of the improvements were aimed at tuner performance and increasing the wattage. 

    Of the dozen or so Marantz receivers that I've owned, I think the 2245 and 2275 would be the best matches for your room and speakers. 
    I agree with Dudeman.  I don't have nearly the experience he does with Marantz, but considering the size of the room and the speakers you are running, those seem to be nice fits.  My understanding is that B models dont' quite have the smooth Marantz sound like like the early 70s.  So that right there would lead me, personally, away from the B's.  
  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,283
    thanks fellas.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,770
    mickeyrat said:
    thanks fellas.
    I think you have vintage equipment already, but if you don't, remember that the watts ratings in the 70's were proper continuous ratings.  So 75 watts on the 2275 is a monster number.  I have a 2245 that I'm driving very large B&W towers, and I can't get the 2245 past a quarter without shaking the walls.  
  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,283
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    thanks fellas.
    I think you have vintage equipment already, but if you don't, remember that the watts ratings in the 70's were proper continuous ratings.  So 75 watts on the 2275 is a monster number.  I have a 2245 that I'm driving very large B&W towers, and I can't get the 2245 past a quarter without shaking the walls.  

    seem to recall the same with what I had back when.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Options
    BIGDaddyWilBIGDaddyWil Michigan Posts: 3,052
    Thinking about selling this little bad boy. My Pioneer SX-636, this thing is as mint as you can get. Kinda leary about shipping though, might have to put it up on Craigslist. I'm not even sure what it's worth. It uses the old speaker connectors.
    Pine Knob Music Theatre - Jul 31, 1992 Crisler Arena - Mar 20, 1994
    Summerfest - Jul 09, 1995*Savage Hall - Sep 22, 1996The Palace of Auburn Hills-Aug 23, 1998 Breslin Center- Aug 18, 1998,The Palace of Auburn Hills-Oct 07, 2000 DTE Energy Theatre-Jun5,2003,DTE Energy Music Theatre - Jun 26, 2003Sports Arena - Oct 02, 2004 Van Andel Arena - May 19, 2006Palace of Auburn Hills-May 22, 2006 Quicken Loans Arena-May 09, 2010
    10-16-2014 Detroit
  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,283
    Thinking about selling this little bad boy. My Pioneer SX-636, this thing is as mint as you can get. Kinda leary about shipping though, might have to put it up on Craigslist. I'm not even sure what it's worth. It uses the old speaker connectors.

    this site may help you price it.

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Options
    BIGDaddyWilBIGDaddyWil Michigan Posts: 3,052
    ^^^^^^^ Thanks mickeyrat!!!!
    Pine Knob Music Theatre - Jul 31, 1992 Crisler Arena - Mar 20, 1994
    Summerfest - Jul 09, 1995*Savage Hall - Sep 22, 1996The Palace of Auburn Hills-Aug 23, 1998 Breslin Center- Aug 18, 1998,The Palace of Auburn Hills-Oct 07, 2000 DTE Energy Theatre-Jun5,2003,DTE Energy Music Theatre - Jun 26, 2003Sports Arena - Oct 02, 2004 Van Andel Arena - May 19, 2006Palace of Auburn Hills-May 22, 2006 Quicken Loans Arena-May 09, 2010
    10-16-2014 Detroit
Sign In or Register to comment.