Marantz "warm", "Colored" sound not "True" "Clear" sound? What?

[charles 1973]

Many Recievers and Amps Color the sound somewhat. It's not necissarily a bad thing. Lets say the Marantz does have a warm colored sound. Than in my old plaster living room with lots of glass and slightly bright speakers it might tame the high Freq just enough to make them enjoyable, and allow more of the ever important midrange to come through. The Sansui on the other hand with its less colored sound might let the room and speakers get out of hand with the High freq, and mask some of the midrange. This is one part of the Synergy refered to in a stereo system.

I preffer a highly transparent Amp and very reveiling Speakers, and use the source to add the musicality part of the equation to make a ballanced system that sounds good with both poor and great recording's. My Nagoaka MP11 cartridge maintains very good Imaging/Soundstage and detail while giving even my used $3 LP's sometimes better sound than my new ones. My Hybred Analog FM tuner uses a pair of 6922 Triode Tubes for the Musicality mix and all of the music I grew up with sounds better than ever, and my DAC Reclocks and upsamples all inputs to 96 khz/24 bit to provide the musicality from my CD's.

 

[stish]

Sorry, I was assuming that I was using my ears and not yours. I've had enough gear here to turn it into a hi fi store, and it was all compared on my terms, repeatedly, and I heard what I heard and liked what I liked.

The largest sample size would be the world of audio enthusiasts, and there is no such consensus, even though as a whole they've been listening to this stuff for nearly 40 years. People still have their favorites, and none of them are wrong. Modern gear has less variance between brands but there's still no consensus, because people simply prefer different approaches and different sounds. Try to get a Mac guy to agree with a Naim guy, and then have them both agree with a Krell or Ayre or SET guy. I don't know why people argue between the brands. There's no right or wrong, because nobody has the same taste.

Exactly.

 

[jstang]

I hate Sansui, Luxman, Pioneer, Mac, Fisher.... I hate every brand except Marantz!!!!!!! I love Marantz! Never owned or heard anything but....

Just to have a clearly objective stake in ground, in case I confuse anyone in process....

Jk

 

[SB Marantz]

There is no spoon........................

 

[nrap]

really my love for marantz is because they sound great with a super low noise floor on my headphones, and they mate well with my Klipsch and JBL speakers.

i think if i had different sounding speaker devices i might prefer my sansui or yammy's or pioneer's.

 

[Markw]

It's really simple.

All those terms are subjective.

The positive ones apply to the gear you like and, conversely, the negative ones apply to the gear you don't.

A perfect example is old school AR anf JBL speakers.

 

[PB_Audio]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you want your Sansui to sound like a Marantz, throw a blanket over your speakers.

That said, the 2230 is my favorite Marantz.

Rob

That your favorite Marantz Receiver is a 2230 goes a long way to explain your first statement.
You may or may not want to admit it, but your two statements tell me that you have never listened to either a new 2245 or 2270, or a properly restored example of either.
Face it, in Vintage Audio, the sonic character of virtually any piece in question will be determined as much by the operational condition, especially including the quality of the parts used in any 'restoration', as by the name on the faceplate.
I, personally, sold this stuff new for 5 years during the mid 70s. This meant listening to all the major receiver lines for 50~60 hours a week. After a while you can literally tell what you're listening to with your eyes closed.
That upper-midrange sizzle or edginess was very characteristic of Pioneer, Sansui and Technics, but, thankfully, not apparent in the Marantz 2245/2270 or 18/19 Receivers.
Unfortunately, by the late 70s, even Marantz had a characteristicly 'hotter' high-end, making it sound somewhat similar to Sansui; but that EQ seemed to work well for the 'ROCK' of that era, so that's what we got.
I'll take a properly restored Marantz Model 18, 19, 2245 or 2270 over any Sansui or Pioneer any day, particularly with regard to detail and accuracy, not to mention musicality or listenability.:yes:

 

[PB_Audio]

It's been Referbed and so has the Fisher. I guess the Fisher works best with my speakers and type of music. Because Fisher is out of business doesn't mean they where bad sounding. Don't get me wrong the Marantz is a nice unit,just not my cup of tea... I like the warmth of the tubes...

If you knew Marantz, given that, as you say, you "like the warmth of tubes", you should have bought either a Model 18, 19, 2245 or 2270, but NOT a 2275.
The EQ of the 2275 was NOT designed to sound like tubes, but was designed to have a 'hotter' high-end. The same is true of the 2250 and 2265/2285.
God knows, this should be clear on Marantz Forum by now.

 

[PB_Audio]

Just shows how subjective this all is. I've owned receivers and/or other gear in good condition from all of those and would rate for sound quality:

1. Luxman (depending upon which gear)
2. Sansui (tied with Sony, again, depending)
3. Yamaha
4. Marantz
5. Pioneer

Not that this is right and yours is wrong. Its just that taste is subjective.

... just another example of the meaninglessness of the description, "good condition".
I'm here to tell you, one man's 'good condition' is another man's receiver crying out for a quality refurb using Audio Grade components.:yes:

 

[PB_Audio]

my sansui 8080 is a little too bright for me. I prefer my 2245. Its nice and laid back, comfortable, and never offensive.
where as my sansui sometimes has too little bass and too much upper midrange for me to handle after midnight

Here is a listener with a 'good ear'...
...YES, IMHO!:thmbsp:

 

[JohnVF]

... just another example of the meaninglessness of the description, "good condition".
I'm here to tell you, one man's 'good condition' is another man's receiver crying out for a quality refurb using Audio Grade components.:yes:

Which is, if anything, an argument for what I didn't list..the gear that rides above all of what I listed, the modern gear in my main rig that I turned to when I turned my back on ALL of this stuff, that doesn't have a sound signature like a Marantz or a Pioneer. It just sounds like music to me. I used to worry about the Marantz sound or Pioneer sound..until I found "sound".

So many of these arguments were settled decades ago. Its like arguing over who shot J.R.

 

[PB_Audio]

Sorry, I was assuming that I was using my ears and not yours. I've had enough gear here to turn it into a hi fi store, and it was all compared on my terms, repeatedly, and I heard what I heard and liked what I liked.

The largest sample size would be the world of audio enthusiasts, and there is no such consensus, even though as a whole they've been listening to this stuff for nearly 40 years. People still have their favorites, and none of them are wrong. Modern gear has less variance between brands but there's still no consensus, because people simply prefer different approaches and different sounds. Try to get a Mac guy to agree with a Naim guy, and then have them both agree with a Krell or Ayre or SET guy. I don't know why people argue between the brands. There's no right or wrong, because nobody has the same taste.

Be that as it may... yes, we are all free to like what we like.
But, if we are talking about 'High Fidelity', there is, by definition, a yardstick by which to measure the sound of our equipment.
Anyone ever listen to LIVE music anymore?

 

[JohnVF]

Be that as it may... yes, we are all free to like what we like.
But, if we are talking about 'High Fidelity', there is, by definition, a yardstick by which to measure the sound of our equipment.
Anyone ever listen to LIVE music anymore?

Yes, quite often. I live in one of the cities known for it, and who's symphony is featured on many of the recordings we use as references. Which is why I lean away from a "house sound". I would prefer to hear the sound of the hall, instead of the sound of the gear.

 

[JimPA]

I think I have the hall sound inside of my house.
Do I have hall sound or house sound?

 

[Bob_in_OKC]

Most of the music I listen to isn't ordinarily performed in "halls". Royal Albert Hall might be a bit over the average artist's head. I'd say the sound in my man cave is as good as at my favorite live music venue.

 

[PB_Audio]

Yes, quite often. I live in one of the cities known for it, and who's symphony is featured on many of the recordings we use as references. Which is why I lean away from a "house sound". I would prefer to hear the sound of the hall, instead of the sound of the gear.

I lived on the South-Side of Chicago for 40 years and now live close enough to NYC to visit the clubs regularly. I played since I was in 4th grade, and continue to play live when I can, at over 60. LIVE music has been my life for the better part of 50 years.
In any HI-FI system you would want to hear the presence of the room acoustics as well as an accurate and detailed soundstage, not to mention an accurate representation of the transients in the sound level and the articulation of the individual instruments.
It's hard to get all that from a receiver; but for my money the Marantz Models 18, 19, 2245 and 2270 come closest to my very aggressively restored Model 500, 7T, and 20/20B than much of the Marantz receiver line or any Pioneer, Sansui, or Technics I've heard through the 70s.
I will, however, give a nod to the Yamaha B-2 Power Amp and the CT-7000 tuner. Excellent, but good luck finding replacement VFET transistors for your B-2.

 

[2string1]

If you knew Marantz, given that, as you say, you "like the warmth of tubes", you should have bought either a Model 18, 19, 2245 or 2270, but NOT a 2275.
The EQ of the 2275 was NOT designed to sound like tubes, but was designed to have a 'hotter' high-end. The same is true of the 2250 and 2265/2285.
God knows, this should be clear on Marantz Forum by now.

Well if you look at my post about 3-4 years ago I didn't know a thing about vintage receivers and posted a question" If I was to buy a Marantz receiver what do you all recommend, well you all said the 2275. I guess I received bad info at the time. What do you mean by hotter' high-end?

 

[Ruxman]

By the way is that an Apollo ?

Top of a speaker is a bad place for microphonics....

If microphonics existed, yes. The concept of microphonics is nonexistant in solid state technology. That's why it's called "solid state". Stop spreading misinformation, please. It's hurting the less educated people. And no, it does not apply to electrolytic capacitors. Science has proven it over and over.

This should really be a bannable offense. AK needs cleaning up, big time.

 

[RichPA]

If microphonics existed, yes. The concept of microphonics is nonexistant in solid state technology. That's why it's called "solid state". Stop spreading misinformation, please. It's hurting the less educated people. And no, it does not apply to electrolytic capacitors. Science has proven it over and over.

This "information" is certainly at odds with other sources. It certainly does apply to some types of capacitors. A little googling will find you a variety of sources on this that provide actual data.

This should really be a bannable offense. AK needs cleaning up, big time.

This is a joke, right?

 

[PAYUPSKI]

i love my Marantz 2245 just as much as my Sansui 9090, IMO the Marantz is a bit warmer sounding.