View Full Version : Marantz 2216 vs Sansui 771 vs Technics SA-5160 - short review


drabina
04-25-2011, 08:46 AM
Just recently I had a chance to listen to all three receivers. Basically Marantz 2216 (2x16W/ch) is my main stereo, Sansui 771 (2x32W/ch) I have picked up to refurbish and give to my parents and Technics SA-5160 (2x30W/ch) is temporarily replacing Marantz which is going on a work bench for a recap.

I know that all three receivers are different but still, it was a good experience to run them on the same set of speakers (Thiel Model 01) with the same source (Denon DP-51F record player). Hopefully my short review will help some other users who are interested in starting with the vintage silver era audio gear. Please do keep in mind that none of the receivers has been recapped. I just cleaned pots, replaced lamps and adjusted bias and dc offset (except Technics as I do not have the service manual). Here are my observations:

Marantz 2216 - Great all around small receiver with a very nice styling. Very good tuner section (gyro tuning is great), nice display, warm bass with enough punch if you want to crank it up a bit from time to time. You need efficient speakers though. Power runs out between 11 and 12pm on the volume scale. Feels solid and it is easily accessible for any repairs.

Sansui 771 - Well, at 2x32W per channel this receiver sings with Thiels (sensitivity 94db). Goes way beyond normal listening volume levels in 12x14ft room. Tuner section is better than Marantz. Display is very nice. To my ear not as warm as Marantz but very dynamic and better balanced. As to the repairs, not as easy accessible as Marantz but still not bad. Had tough time to replace fuse lamps as I had to disconnect some wires to pull the panel out.

Technics SA-5160 - Hmm? Not impressed at all. The only nice thing in this receiver is the front panel. Very thick aluminum which puts Marantz front panel to shame. Other than that, the knobs feel flimsy. Tuner is OK but nothing special. Kinda hard to lock on the stations. Sound is just what I would call plain. Bass is boomy and not too much clear highs. Plays nice in low volumes but gets distorted quickly when volume gets increased. Repairs should be pretty easy as all the panels are easily accessible. Replacing fuse lamps is a breeze (all receivers should be that easy).

So that's my quick review. Oh, and reminder to all: check fuses before you connect the gear for the first time. The Technics had mismatched fuses (one was way below the expected value and the other one was above).

gearhound
04-25-2011, 12:01 PM
Thanks for taking the time to post those reviews, it is appreciated!

Steve

JBL GUY
04-25-2011, 12:06 PM
Thanks for the reviews.

drabina
04-25-2011, 12:16 PM
Nice reviews but the 771 has 40 wpc. That was my first good receiver I bought new in '75 or so?
That's at 1,000Hz (8Ohms). 20-20K 8Ohms is rated at 32W per channel.

Hmm? There was a post that I have quoted and now it is gone?

DCinDC
10-02-2011, 01:57 PM
Technics SA-5160 - Hmm? Not impressed at all. The only nice thing in this receiver is the front panel. Very thick aluminum which puts Marantz front panel to shame.

I know it's an old thread....

There is a blogspot post commenting on the "thick aluminum front panel", as well as here. I beg to differ. I have one here and it is not as beefy or well made as the Sansui by a trucklength, and the Marantz is still far better.

The Technics is a cheap mass market wannabe, that happened to be very good looking. But not well made or even good sounding.

There, it's been said.

Ruxman
10-02-2011, 02:23 PM
You're wrong. Technics made very good gear. Sound quality is excellent. Nowhere near the best makers like Denon, Luxman and Accuphase, of course, but still better than most other brands.

DCinDC
10-02-2011, 02:35 PM
You're wrong. Technics made very good gear. Sound quality is excellent. Nowhere near the best makers like Denon, Luxman and Accuphase, of course, but still better than most other brands.

I'm not wrong and you are talking nonsense.

I've owned all three of the receivers that are the topic of this thread.
I commented on one of the three receivers in this thread compared to the others.

You assume I am talking about all products by one manufacturer.


Only a fool would make such a foolish blanket statement.
Which is exactly what you just did.

bullittman28
10-04-2011, 12:46 AM
I cant speak about the other two but I know my sansui 771 is amazing. It sounds great and is built like a bank vault. I'm very impressed.

Bullittman

elusive
10-04-2011, 12:21 PM
You're wrong. Technics made very good gear. Sound quality is excellent. Nowhere near the best makers like Denon, Luxman and Accuphase, of course, but still better than most other brands.

Are you trying to be troll? I've read many of your posts, you seem to either give bad advice, or try to start a fight.

cnh2
10-04-2011, 02:27 PM
Nice review. Don't know these lower power receivers well.

I have the Sansui 5000A, Marantz 2265, and the Technics SA-5570. All sound good enough. But the 'real' surprise is, actually, the Technics--fairly warm and clean (not necessarily any better than the others but a lot better than most people give Technics credit for?).

I agree though that it's not fair to use the above units for comparison, since the OP reviewed the lower powered and hence lower cost items.

The Technics above was the second model in that series under the 165 watt x 2 SA-5770.

cnh2

kydog
05-20-2012, 03:17 PM
Old post ( I know) But needed to chime in:yes: IMHO the Technics is one nice receiver with more than It's rated power output and clean sound, There I said it:music::D

Parsec
06-05-2013, 08:56 AM
It seems to me unfair to compare more than 30 years old amps without doing the recapping job on each one to its original condition, unless you want to "guess" by your ears which one may be the most caps resistive to time.
My english is crap, sorry.http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/scratch2.gif

Parsec
06-05-2013, 08:58 AM
And the Technics's bias and DC offset were not adjusted as the 2 others. A little bit more unfair.