Post your stereo system!

dudeman

mrussel1 said:

dudeman said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

dudeman said:

tempo_n_groove 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!

tempo_n_groove

dudeman said:

mrussel1 said:

dudeman said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

dudeman said:

tempo_n_groove 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.

mrussel1

tempo_n_groove said:

dudeman said:

mrussel1 said:

dudeman said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

dudeman said:

tempo_n_groove 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. 

dudeman

Most of the music I listen to is rock and roll in all its various forms and blues.

I have needs that are pretty easily met by stereo equipment. Haha

Also, I'm going to pick that 2275 up on Saturday. The seller says he also has a pair of Marantz Imperial 6 speakers and a Denon turntable that he wants to demo for me.

Should be a good time!

BIGDaddyWil

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!

mrussel1

BIGDaddyWil 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?

dudeman

BIGDaddyWil 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 system! Vintage Pioneer gear is badass.

One of my biggest gear selling regrets is letting go of a Pioneer PL-55DX turntable that I had restored. It had a speed issue when I got it and it acted like it was going to take off like a helicopter. I replaced the two micro switches and recapped the speed control board. After that, it was one of the most stable and engaging turntables I've heard. Foolishly, I let it go and have not seen another one since.

LB260405

@mookieblalock Did you get the PM8006? I am looking to upgrade to this model and would like to get your opinion. The all-analog nature of this integrated amp is appealing, and I'd like to know how the phono stage sounds with your turntable. It's getting hard to find an integrated amp without all the bells and whistles these days (DACs and streamers that will be outdated tomorrow -- blah). This one looks like a winner to me. Let me know. Thanks.

BIGDaddyWil

mrussel1 said:

BIGDaddyWil 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.

dudeman

^^^ That's incredible! Kind of like winning the lottery nowadays. 

I went to check out that Marantz today. The restored one has some issues. It was really noisy and the right channel kept dropping out. It was also nearly impossible to get the channels balanced when they were both working. (Probably related). Not sure that the person who did the work was entirely honest. I passed on that one but the guy had another 2275 that is still original. It also has the wood case but it has been kind of haphazardly "repaired". One corner on the top rear has been patched with a piece of veneer which is pretty poor match to the original.

Anyway, I ended up bringing that one home. I'll repair/rebuild it myself and hopefully end up with a good example of the model. It was a good enough deal that I should be able to recoup anything that I might put in to it.

BIGDaddyWil

^^^^ Keep us posted with the repair/rebuild.

dudeman

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.

tempo_n_groove

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dudeman said:

mrussel1 said:

dudeman said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

dudeman said:

tempo_n_groove 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.

tempo_n_groove

BIGDaddyWil said:

mrussel1 said:

BIGDaddyWil 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.

mrussel1

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dudeman said:

mrussel1 said:

dudeman said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

dudeman said:

tempo_n_groove 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.  

mrussel1

BIGDaddyWil said:

mrussel1 said:

BIGDaddyWil 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. 

tempo_n_groove

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dudeman said:

mrussel1 said:

dudeman said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

dudeman said:

tempo_n_groove 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!

mrussel1

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dudeman said:

mrussel1 said:

dudeman said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

dudeman said:

tempo_n_groove 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.  

tempo_n_groove

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dudeman said:

mrussel1 said:

dudeman said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

dudeman said:

tempo_n_groove 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.

mrussel1

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dudeman said:

mrussel1 said:

dudeman said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

dudeman said:

tempo_n_groove 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.