I'm disappointed

[VA50]

I don't have a clue how this works and will probably get yelled at for saying this . Anyway i have 4 cerwin vega E715 speakers, currently only using 2. I have a 30w Marantz sr325 and 3 high end av receivers ranging from 125w ch rms to 220w ch rms. The Marantz keeps up in volume with all of them while keeping clearer sweeter sound and without become offensive at high volumes. I find it really disappointing that a low end 80's receiver that isn't worth much performs so well. How is this even possible??? :blink:

[Batty]

Shhhhh, don't let everyone know or the second hand price will go through the roof

[VA50]

hahaha, It already has tho

[LogicprObe]

Next you'll be a two channel vintage convert!

[lebowski]

no surprises vintageaudio guy, and as Batty says ... shhh.

Many (but not all) of the current mainstream Audio brands have average power supplies and components and are designed and built to be lightweight so that global distribution costs are low, which often means major design compromise.

Edited August 31, 2012 by lebowski

[VA50]

I already am a vintage 2 channel fan Logicpr0be

What i don't get tho is why are these old receivers that are rated far lower then the modern ones just as powerful if not more powerful?

Edited August 31, 2012 by vintageaudio50

[VA50]

no surprises vintageaudio guy, and as Batty says ... shhh.

Many (but not all) of the current mainstream Audio brands have average power supplies and components and are designed and built to be lightweight so that global distribution costs are low, which often means major design compromise.

Very true, however my Denon has a toroidal transformer almost as big as a fridge compressor, filter caps as big as spray cans, transistors as big as matchboxes and the old Marantz is still cleaner sounding. The Denon has got far better bass response tho, it's more punchy where as the Marantz is a bit boomy sounding. The Denon is 220w rms tho compared to the Marantz at 30w rms

Edited August 31, 2012 by vintageaudio50

[Nada]

remember Marantz had a high end audio background and a design ethos of minimal components with a sweet midrange house sound which is very musically rewarding

those older Marantz receivers are gems and biamping a stereo system can do excellent bass too, as well as acting as a DAC and headamp

why students dont snap them up and biamp Diamond 9.1's is appalling

[lebowski]

Very true, however my Denon has a toroidal transformer almost as big as a fridge compressor, filter caps as big as spray cans, transistors as big as matchboxes and the old Marantz is still cleaner sounding. The Denon has got far better bass response tho, it's more punchy where as the Marantz is a bit boomy sounding. The Denon is 220w rms tho compared to the Marantz at 30w rms

I read that hi-fi manufacturers back in the 70's would often underrate the power output of their Amps to gain favourable reviews and win demo shootouts. Maybe they stretch the truth the other way these days?

[ayou2]

It's not all about power. The pre-amp section of the older amp is most likely where the major differences are.

Modern AV amps mostly have decent power, but if you use them for power only and go out to a decent 2 channel pre-amp (rotel, NAD etc) you can improve your 2 channel sound a lot.

Ironically most people take the opposite approach and buy a better (more expensive) power amp and still pre through the AV receiver. Which can often yield underwhelming results.

[Anthony John Colbert]

it may well be the discrete vs chip amp sound as well as the other things mentioned too

[Anthony John Colbert]

some of the vintage amps sound amazing, i heard a massive old sansui...au11x or something like that....sounded amazing hooked up to a pair of ns1000m speakers. Stomped all over an Electrocompaniet pre-power combo (ec 4.7/aw 120)

[VA50]

I've also noticed that the old Marantz has virtually no hiss if the volume is turned up with no sound being played. All the av's i've heard from cheap ones all the way to very expensive ones hiss loudly from the day they are taken out of the box.

[Vintage_Hi_Fi]

all valid points above, vintage amps were designed for music and music only. A lot of av receivers have the 2 channel function as an 'extra' and not really designed for music listneing but more so movies and the like. I don't know of many AV receivers where the 2 channel functionality is 'musical'. I like vintage amps beause they were essentially over engineered, transformers, heat sinks, transistors were all made to perfection and to last - and the results shine through, audio buffs world wide recognise the benefits of vintage 2 channel audio and use newer AV receivers etc for movies etc.

[VA50]

Another thing i like about vintage amps is you never have to study a manual just to work out how adjust the bass/treble or something like that. Everything is written plain and easy to understand under every switch and dial.

[emesbee]

Its not really all that surprising. As others have said, older stereo amps were built mainly with music in mind, and in some cases their rated power output tended to be a bit understated. In contrast, with modern AVRs the tendency seems to be to overstate power ratings, presumably to impress potential customers. Also, AVRs are powering multiple channels (in surround mode) as well as containing all sorts of audio signal processing and video switching. AVRs are complex beasts, trying to do a whole lot more than merely reproduce sound, so its not surprising that straight-forward stereo amps often do a better job with music.

[Sub Sonic]

In relation to many AVRs, the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind :-)

[danter]

I read that hi-fi manufacturers back in the 70's would often underrate the power output of their Amps to gain favourable reviews and win demo shootouts. Maybe they stretch the truth the other way these days?

My Marantz 240 rated at 120wpc odd was bench tested at near 165wpc. Now that is understatement!

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[VA50]

I really want a Marantz model 1200b, Such a solid looking amp. I don't know about the really high end vintage Marantz but did any of them have thermal protection? I don't think mine does.

[THOMO]

High sensitivity speakers like the Cerwin Vegas tend not to sound the best with typical SS amps.Lots of power is probably the last thing they need.

You might want to try a valve amp or gainclone type chip amp.

[VA50]

High sensitivity speakers like the Cerwin Vegas tend not to sound the best with typical SS amps.Lots of power is probably the last thing they need.

You might want to try a valve amp or gainclone type chip amp.

Thanks for the advice, Its interesting if they are better with low power because they are rated for 400w rms, it also happens to be the amplifiers they sound best on are the Marantz sr325 which has a stk4833 ic @30w rms and the pioneer that also uses ic's @125w rms.

[Vintage_Hi_Fi]

I agree with Thomo, these speakers are super efficient, I'd continue to experiment with lower rms output amps SS or valve until you find the synergy you are looking for. If I had these I'd try them with a Sansui AU-555 or Pioneer SA-6300 - both relatively low power but musical sounding amplifiers.

[VA50]

Thanks, I know nothing when it comes to valve amps, Are they delicate and need to be treated gently or will they take some abuse playing deep bass music like moby at high volume levels?