Which Vintage Integrated Are/Are Not Good Preamp??

LutherG1

Active Member
I recently had an audio aha moment - at least to my ears - when I swapped in a Marantz 2238B for an Adcom 565 (running into Adcom 5500) and found that I actually preferred the Marantz. However from reading various threads I see that certainn receivers such as HK 730 are preferred for their power amp but characterized as having a weaker preamp. I know that many folks say that a decent pre should blow away an integrated but at least in this case I preferred Marantz. Do some vintage integrateds thrive as power amps while others as preamps - Sansui, Yamaha, Marantz, HK, Luxman, Onkyo, etc. Thoughts? Opinions?
 
Register to hide this ad
From a strictly "hypothetical" position, a power amp does nothing more than amplify a signal with no coloration--we all know this is not true, but that is the theory.

Preamp and sources produce the "sonic signature" that is then amplified and delivered to the amp and speakers.

Go with what YOU like--that's the only way to go.
 
I've said it once, and I'll say it again. The NAD 3020 has an excellent sounding preamp, even more so when it has been properly restored (hint, hint, :naughty:). If you have efficient speakers, or don't need to make your ears bleed in order to listen to music, it works well as an integrated also.

Lee.
 
There really is no hard and fast rule for what manufacturer sounds best using their pres or integrated amps or anything really.
I just moved a Yamaha integrated into my main system, kicking out a Luxman pre into a Yamaha power amp. To MY ears the integrated is a massive improvement but you may not agree.
You really have to shop around for your sound and build a system that works well with all of its parts.
 
There are also some receivers with very nice preamp sections. I'm really enjoying listening to my Proton D940 that I'm finishing a rebuild on. It's got MM/MC phono section with cartridge capacitance selection, pre-out/main-in, bridgeable power amp, and even Schotz noise reduction circuitry for FM. Certainly no slouch.
 
I'll 2nd OP's finding that those smaller Marantz B receivers make excellent preamps. I'm using a 2226B myself. Great phono stage too. Also doesn't hurt that they're the most beautiful receivers ever built...
 
I recently had an audio aha moment - at least to my ears - when I swapped in a Marantz 2238B for an Adcom 565 (running into Adcom 5500) and found that I actually preferred the Marantz. However from reading various threads I see that certainn receivers such as HK 730 are preferred for their power amp but characterized as having a weaker preamp. I know that many folks say that a decent pre should blow away an integrated but at least in this case I preferred Marantz. Do some vintage integrateds thrive as power amps while others as preamps - Sansui, Yamaha, Marantz, HK, Luxman, Onkyo, etc. Thoughts? Opinions?

It depends........

First cut would be spec out.

Take the finalists and compare the specs again, and read the reviews, not all that in print is true, even if it was meant to be.

Some companies crank out a lot of good products and therefore offer a better choice and price used. Yamaha comes to mind. I would not be surprised to find that they outsold all of the other Japanese brands combined in the vintage stereo days.

If you only listen to a phono or a DAC, why have a pre amp at all? There are plenty of amps with gain controls. Or you can use a stand alone passive variable resistor aka volume knob.

All things being equal, the sound of the system is the sound of a $2 component the op-amp. And yes, op amp don't all sound the same.
 
Last edited:
The ones that don't have preamp outputs aren't good candidates. I'm thinking of the Technics SU-V9 which would be a definite keeper for me as a preamp if it had jumpers or standalone if it had the balls to stand up to large vintage Infinitys.

I once used a NAD 3225PE with a dead amp channel as a preamp for about a year. It worked out fine.
 
First cut would be spec out.
Great way to completely miss out on the best sounding unit.

I never really knew what good sound was until i learned how unimportant, and insignificant specs are and learned to mostly ignore them.

If you want impressive looking specs on paper, that's fine. Just don't confuse specs with good sound, there's not as much relationship as many would have you believe.
 
Last edited:
If you want impressive looking specs on paper, that's fine. Just don't confuse specs with good sound, there's not as much relationship as many would have you believe.

First, as to your statement, yes some manufactures are ethically challenged or don't know their craft well enough to take accurate measurements in realistic tests, yes I am being charitable with the ethically challenged. Some companies like McIntosh consistently underrate their products.

If you have some suggestions on sleeper products, buy all means post them.

The integrated amp (surround receiver) that I use fronting 3 totl Yamaha power amps is a Pioneer Elite THX rated receiver. Since I only use the pre-amp section, the power output is irrelevant and to save weight and size the lower the better.

THX is not only specs, it includes bench tests to verify robust performance and design integrity.

I believe that if anything we need more specs and independent tests to back them up, THX is one set of standards that all can be measured against.

I couldn't find the list of amp tests from a former THX employee, but it was extensive and a lot of them had to do with surviveability in addition to linear 1 in 1 out performance type tests.

I believe that SN, THD, Damping, linear response curves etc are important, better if they are verified in case someone is shading their numbers.

As far as adjusting the sound, sure I have lots of EQs, and my Mac Preamp has lots of filters and an expander feature I play with.

An interesting case in point is the 55-60 year old McIntosh MC 30 amp, which most people have a good reaction to when they hear it. When you look at the specs to peak output, they are OK but not great, when you look at the .5 Watts specs (important with horn loaded speakers) the specs are stellar compared to anything. Of course the manual only has peak, and I couldn't find the cut sheet with the .5 numbers......

Can you have a pre amp or amp that specs out poorly but sounds good, sure it's possible, but it would be interesting to do box swaps with units that measure better and see if there is a difference in sound.

My recommendation for anyone looking for a killer 2 channel pre amp is to pick up a used THX certified surround receiver with pre-amp outputs, auto room-speaker correction, a built in EQ, a built in quality DAC with 120Db SN, a great remote control etc....... for about $150-200 max.

Alternatively, if you like to solder and can interpret the specs on OP Amps you can get a good used Pre-amp or integrated if you like tight spaces and replace the Op Amps with sockets and begin OP Amp rolling, the headphone guys swear by it, and some of the re-builders of stereo gear are already into it, like wine tasting.

The little $2 op amps have a lot to do with the sound of a pre-amp and the attached amp.

My two cents.......
 
specs don't matter.. hmmm referring to what? an amp does not make 'good sound' it processes signals.
 
I recently had an audio aha moment - at least to my ears - when I swapped in a Marantz 2238B for an Adcom 565 (running into Adcom 5500) and found that I actually preferred the Marantz. However from reading various threads I see that certainn receivers such as HK 730 are preferred for their power amp but characterized as having a weaker preamp. I know that many folks say that a decent pre should blow away an integrated but at least in this case I preferred Marantz. Do some vintage integrateds thrive as power amps while others as preamps - Sansui, Yamaha, Marantz, HK, Luxman, Onkyo, etc. Thoughts? Opinions?

The answer to your question could be anything as long as you have heard them all and compared them. Seriously. If your question defines your sound preference you will get a more specific suggestion.
 
I'm running a pair of solid state SWTP mono blocks through a Sansui 2000x and the sound is spectacular. The Sui has nice phono and tuner sections too. If those things are important to you then you can search AK for receivers with pre in/out and good phono/tuner as a place to start. As has been stated, your ears will be the judge of what sounds good to you. Good luck.
 
OP here - thanks for the thoughtful replies. Much appreciated. The sound I prefer is warm a la Marantz and deep but tight bass a la a higher powered Sansui such as an 8080 DB. I found that for me the leap forward was getting the 200 WPC Adcom 5500. But somehow I still prefer vintage amps to separate preamps thus the quest for vintage integrated as preamp. I do go with my ears for sure but as we all know we do not get an opportunity to infinitle swap in gear to test. I am pleased as I said with Marantz 2238b. Would a NAD 3020 be a difference maker - who knows. Would a 2230 be any different - probably not. I have had both a NAD 130O, Adcom 565 and Rotel RC 970 as preamps. The Marantz 2238 does my ears better. I came across a NAK 410 that I will give a spin as well. Thanks again for comments.
 
Re the H/K 730..............

"................from reading various threads I see that certain receivers such as HK 730 are preferred for their power amp but characterized as having a weaker preamp......................."

I've read that too. Maybe it's just cuz the amp section is so nice. Dunno, but I'm running my 730 as a pre, with Y splitters into a Behringer CX2310 crossover, then out to 4 channels of an ADCOM 7500 (5 x 150wpc).

The amp in my 730 needs attention but the pre-amp sounds very nice into the ADCOM, into my (primitive) DIY open baffles.

I don't have a ton of experience with Marantz and Sansui etc, but the 730 sounds good to me.

It's all what works for YOU! :yes:
 
Back
Top Bottom