• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Antique 1970s-era Marantz receivers and integrated amplifiers

ronniebear

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2022
Messages
56
Likes
53
After using the search tool, I could not find discussion or testing specifically about the 1970s-era Marantz receivers and integrated amplifiers, dating from the era of Superscope ownership. These units sold in very large numbers back in the day, and have become increasingly desirable over the past five years on the second-hand market. No doubt part of the popularity of these units is the styling, including the blue-lit tuning display, Gyro-Touch tuning wheel, solid feel of the control knobs, overall styling and appearance cues, and "snob appeal" for want of a better word. There seems to also be a perception/belief that these units provide better-than-average sound quality than other 1970s-era mass-market audio products and many current-era audio amplifiers.

I still own and use a 1972-vintage Marantz 2230 receiver in my living room. I purchased it fully reconditioned from a used-stereo store in 1998, it has not been refurbished since. My Marantz 2230 has been a pleasure to enjoy, though the tuner's blue lights need replacement and it could doubtless use a bit of intelligent refurbishing after 24 years. I've had other vintage amplification units over the intervening years (i.e. Sansui 881 and Pioneer SX-750 receivers, both of which now need repair, and a fondly-missed NAD 3020 that finally blew up in smoke and was exiled to e-cycling).

How do these sought-after Superscope-era 1970s Marantz receivers and amps measure out today in objective testing?
 

MaxwellsEq

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,628
Likes
2,426
There may be a challenge testing a device and being confident that it's a good representative of the class. Imagine two identical 25 year old amplifiers, one of which was stored in a cupboard unused and the other has done 25 years hard service in a bar. Would they measure the same? Which one represents the "true" version of the amplifier?

I've never wanted "vintage" kit and certainly would not pay a lot for an example. It's old, I'd rather spend my money on something new. Modern test kit is so much better. Modern modelling is so much better.
 

Prana Ferox

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Messages
914
Likes
1,888
Location
NoVA, USA
Paging @restorer-john

Personally I'd rather have a Sony.

But I also agree with the sentiment that between the unknowns of operating / storage conditions, component degradation and who knows what repairs, odds are any 70's kit will underperform its original spec and the real question is how representative to consider it.
 

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,216
Likes
24,175
The Superscope-era ("Chatsworth, CA") Marantz hardware is, IMO -- mostly -- horrifically over-rated and overpriced in the vintage/collectible massmarket hifi market of today. My belief is that their Rococo aesthetics make them artifactually desirable.

Then, and now, it struck me as second-rate compared to most of the other big-name brands of the same general era (Luxman, Yamaha, Kenwood, harman/kardon, e.g., and even some of the second-tier, past their prime brand names of that era like HH Scott and Sherwood) -- especially so when value (performance per dollar spent) is taken into consideration. Indeed, some of the early/mid-1970s Sony components were pretty darned good (and, yes, even some Sony consumer hifi hardware from the second half of the '70s, too).
 

JeffS7444

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
2,347
Likes
3,507
How do these sought-after Superscope-era 1970s Marantz receivers and amps measure out today in objective testing?
The manufacturer's own published specifications, copied from hifispeaker.wiki, give us a pretty good idea of what was possible when the unit was new:

Tuning range: FM, MW
Power Output: 30W into 8Ω (stereo)
Frequency Response: 15Hz to 50kHz (+/- dB?)
Distortion: 0.5% (presumably tested with purely resistive load per FTC guidelines)
Damping Factor: 45
Speaker Impedance: 4 to 16Ω (but no indication of power output at anything other than 8 ohms)
Input Sensitivity: 1.8mV (mm), 180mV (line)
Signal to Noise Ratio: 83dB (line)
Line Output:
Dimensions: 17-21/64 x 5-25/64 x 14"
Weight: 28.6 lb

Power amplifier-wise, it's pretty dated: It's large, heavy, noisy, and doesn't actually produce a lot of power. Not competitive against good modern <100 USD amplifier.

Tuner: Pretty much a foregone conclusion that selectivity won't come close to modern DSP and tuner-on-a-chip designs.

Phono: Probably won't match an inexpensive modern unit (opamps, surface mount) in terms of noise, RIAA accuracy, channel matching, maybe immunity to overload

Overall retro vibe: Score one for vintage!

But having said this, as an amplifier, I'm guessing it's nevertheless transparent-ish, with a bit of hiss and hum likely being the sonic dead giveaway that it's an older design.

But for better or worse, the era of more tactile controls in audio electronics pretty much ended when remote control became a must-have feature.
 

DVDdoug

Major Contributor
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
2,917
Likes
3,831
Basically when audio went solid-state you no longer needed an output audio transformer (which was needed between tubes and speakers) and it became pretty easy and relatively inexpensive to make good sounding audio electronics.

With the same source (DC or streaming, etc.) the odds are that the old receiver will sound just as good as the new one. That's assuming no actual defects.

That doesn't mean every manufactured cared, but most receivers from that era were pretty good.

Over the years the costs have come down with integrated circuits and power MOSFETs so you usually get more power in a modern receiver, and of course a lot more features, like remote control and digital inputs, etc.

Then, since digital audio became available customers expect better sound so now audio manufacturers have to provide good sound quality.




...I just tossed-out a dead Sanusi receiver that somebody gave me. I think it was originally a "good one" and probably expensive. I had only used it for the phono preamp when I occasionally digitize a vinyl LP. When I tried to turn it on last weekend it was dead. I know a little about electronics and it had a schematic attached to the bottom so I probably could have fixed it. I checked the fuse and opened it up to see if it was anything obvious & easy but I didn't find anything. I didn't even bother with the schematic.

So my backup plan was to use my DIY phono preamp that I haven't used in probably 30 years. It didn't work either. :( I'll probably repair it eventually. But I just ordered a USB-phono interface for $100 so I can digitize the record and any records that I may want to digitize in the future. I only do this when the music isn't available digitally.
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,579
Likes
38,278
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Paging @restorer-john

Personally I'd rather have a Sony.

But I also agree with the sentiment that between the unknowns of operating / storage conditions, component degradation and who knows what repairs, odds are any 70's kit will underperform its original spec and the real question is how representative to consider it.

The early Marantz receivers, and even the first few ranges out of the SRC (Standard Radio Corporation) factory in Japan are seriously over-valued and honestly not that good. I'd take an early, unmolested Sony receiver over a Marantz, apart from the looks, which have become so classic and desirable.

The pick of the early 1970s Marantz is the 2275 IMO, but things really improved when I believe there was a shift in the manufacturer for a period. I am convinced that the twin 1978 range came out of both SRC and Matsushita, something that nobody talks about. The range that included the 2218/26B/38B/52B was SRC and I believe the 1515/1530/1550 (model MR250/255 in the US) was Matsushita.

My pick if you want a Marantz receiver, with excellent performance, better reliability and not paying through the nose, is the 1550.

I could go into all the whys and comparisons, but then the 'internet' will 'discover' it as a sleeper and the bargains will disappear.
 
Last edited:

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,216
Likes
24,175
The manufacturer's own published specifications, copied from hifispeaker.wiki, give us a pretty good idea of what was possible when the unit was new:

Tuning range: FM, MW
Power Output: 30W into 8Ω (stereo)
Frequency Response: 15Hz to 50kHz (+/- dB?)
Distortion: 0.5% (presumably tested with purely resistive load per FTC guidelines)
Damping Factor: 45
Speaker Impedance: 4 to 16Ω (but no indication of power output at anything other than 8 ohms)
Input Sensitivity: 1.8mV (mm), 180mV (line)
Signal to Noise Ratio: 83dB (line)
Line Output:
Dimensions: 17-21/64 x 5-25/64 x 14"
Weight: 28.6 lb

Power amplifier-wise, it's pretty dated: It's large, heavy, noisy, and doesn't actually produce a lot of power. Not competitive against good modern <100 USD amplifier.

Tuner: Pretty much a foregone conclusion that selectivity won't come close to modern DSP and tuner-on-a-chip designs.

Phono: Probably won't match an inexpensive modern unit (opamps, surface mount) in terms of noise, RIAA accuracy, channel matching, maybe immunity to overload

Overall retro vibe: Score one for vintage!

But having said this, as an amplifier, I'm guessing it's nevertheless transparent-ish, with a bit of hiss and hum likely being the sonic dead giveaway that it's an older design.

But for better or worse, the era of more tactile controls in audio electronics pretty much ended when remote control became a must-have feature.
Are these 2230 specs? If so, they're probably pre-FTC '74. It's close, in terms of the era of the unsuffixed 2230. The 2230 is a pretty early Superscope-era receiver to the best of my knowledge.
Here are the (clearly pre-FTC '74) specs from the 2230 brochure owner's manual at https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/marantz/2230.shtml


1667511810346.png

Indeed, even the address was pre-Chatsworth: PO Box 99 Sun Valley, CA. The scanned OM contains a hand-written purchase date of June 1974.
The 2230 was presumably ca. 30 watts 'continuous' per channel.
 
Last edited:

fordiebianco

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 11, 2020
Messages
355
Likes
752
Location
British Isles
I'm a Rotel man myself.

Thought I throw that into the discussion.
 

jkasch

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
755
Likes
4,772
I gave away a 2275 that was given to me. It had a few issues, and I couldn't find anyone at the time qualified to restore it. I now wish I had tried a little harder.
 

MaxwellsEq

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,628
Likes
2,426
What I struggle with is the belief that "vintage receivers are better than modern kit". Why would this be? If someone likes the look, that's up to them, but what is in a solid state receiver from 1970 that can't be put in a 2022 equivalent and be as good, if not better. I've read reviews claiming much "beefier" power (rather like the 5L V8 engine analogy), but this is measurably nonsense.

Much of my kit is several decades old, not because I buy old kit, but because I buy new and then look after it; and if it was measurably good when I bought it. it's probably still OK. I've never had the budget to keep buying new kit, so I learn to appreciate my music through it.
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
What I struggle with is the belief that "vintage receivers are better than modern kit". Why would this be? If someone likes the look, that's up to them, but what is in a solid state receiver from 1970 that can't be put in a 2022 equivalent and be as good, if not better. I've read reviews claiming much "beefier" power (rather like the 5L V8 engine analogy), but this is measurably nonsense.

Much of my kit is several decades old, not because I buy old kit, but because I buy new and then look after it; and if it was measurably good when I bought it. it's probably still OK. I've never had the budget to keep buying new kit, so I learn to appreciate my music through it.
Being a cynical man, I think the equipment flippers are taking advantage of nostalgia. An audiophile and their money are soon parted ;)
 

Chrispy

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
7,751
Likes
5,910
Location
PNW
I had a 2270 back in the 70s/80s, wouldn't want it back. I'm sure my modern avrs are better in a wide variety of ways (altho not as refurbishable).
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,579
Likes
38,278
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
What I struggle with is the belief that "vintage receivers are better than modern kit". Why would this be? If someone likes the look, that's up to them, but what is in a solid state receiver from 1970 that can't be put in a 2022 equivalent and be as good, if not better. I've read reviews claiming much "beefier" power (rather like the 5L V8 engine analogy), but this is measurably nonsense.

Much of my kit is several decades old, not because I buy old kit, but because I buy new and then look after it; and if it was measurably good when I bought it. it's probably still OK. I've never had the budget to keep buying new kit, so I learn to appreciate my music through it.

The simple reason is they were so much better in every regard. The view you have arrived at, is sadly, misguided.

For a start, the entire reason a receiver existed was to combine an excellent tuner, preamplifer and amplifer into one high performance chassis.

No modern receivers from any brands, regardless of where they sit in the range, from any manufacturer has a high quality AM/FM tuner in it. Not one. The tuners are basically a single can with dreadful performance in every parameter. They barely qualify as a tuner.

The phono stages (if even included) in AVRs are just a check box design and basically so bad, they shouldn't ever be used.

As for power, continuous power, and reserve capability, along with reliability, there is nothing modern in the receiver stakes I would put in my house, letalone in my HiFi system. I am constantly disgusted at the interiors of modern AVRs.

A middle of the range, vintage 2 channel receiver will easily outperform an equivalent modern AVR.
 

JeffS7444

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
2,347
Likes
3,507

MaxwellsEq

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,628
Likes
2,426
The simple reason is they were so much better in every regard. The view you have arrived at, is sadly, misguided.

For a start, the entire reason a receiver existed was to combine an excellent tuner, preamplifer and amplifer into one high performance chassis.
I concede that this is a good point!
No modern receivers from any brands, regardless of where they sit in the range, from any manufacturer has a high quality AM/FM tuner in it. Not one. The tuners are basically a single can with dreadful performance in every parameter. They barely qualify as a tuner.
That's certainly the case. At the time, there were better standalone tuners, but your point about them being built in is important.

Apart from in the car, though, I never listen to FM/AM radio...
The phono stages (if even included) in AVRs are just a check box design and basically so bad, they shouldn't ever be used.
I agree. But then I wasn't really talking about AVRs. I have one, but I never switch it on. I have studio monitor controller (as a pre-amp) and a standalone power amp. I also have a standalone phono amp. I wouldn't use an AVR for any of these functions and I'm sure all my current kit is as good if not better than anything from 1974. BUT it's not all in one box!
As for power, continuous power, and reserve capability, along with reliability, there is nothing modern in the receiver stakes I would put in my house, letalone in my HiFi system. I am constantly disgusted at the interiors of modern AVRs.
Absolutely agree. I would not use an AVR to drive my stereo system, which is what the Marantz discussed above is - it's not an AVR with multiple video decoders and rear and center channels etc.
A middle of the range, vintage 2 channel receiver will easily outperform an equivalent modern AVR.
Agreed. But I wasn't discussing AVRs.

However, you are right - it was all in one box, which is not what I was comparing it to!
 

Chrispy

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
7,751
Likes
5,910
Location
PNW
The simple reason is they were so much better in every regard. The view you have arrived at, is sadly, misguided.

For a start, the entire reason a receiver existed was to combine an excellent tuner, preamplifer and amplifer into one high performance chassis.

No modern receivers from any brands, regardless of where they sit in the range, from any manufacturer has a high quality AM/FM tuner in it. Not one. The tuners are basically a single can with dreadful performance in every parameter. They barely qualify as a tuner.

The phono stages (if even included) in AVRs are just a check box design and basically so bad, they shouldn't ever be used.

As for power, continuous power, and reserve capability, along with reliability, there is nothing modern in the receiver stakes I would put in my house, letalone in my HiFi system. I am constantly disgusted at the interiors of modern AVRs.

A middle of the range, vintage 2 channel receiver will easily outperform an equivalent modern AVR.
Got any measurements from 70s Marantz units to modern avrs? Am/fm is barely used I think by most compared to streaming, and phono stage somewhat in the same vein....while I can imagine the tuner sections back then were better, I'm thinking there's not likely a lot of difference in a modern receiver (i.e. an avr) in phono stage, tho. It's not that difficult but of course shortcuts can be taken nonetheless. Pre-amp amp sections I'd have trouble considering the 70s Marantz stuff as particularly superior, so would be interested in measurements there (or even your favored Sony stuff). Then again old receivers are of extremely limited functionality otherwise compared to modern gear....
 

Steven Holt

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 8, 2022
Messages
426
Likes
557
The phono stages (if even included) in AVRs are just a check box design and basically so bad, they shouldn't ever be used.
John, back in my coming - up days I had an Advent 300. It was a middling little receiver, did everything OK, but oh that Phono Stage! It was excellent, so good that many bought the 300 just to use as a preamp for the phono input. No hum, no feedback, crystal clear. Wished u could have heard it. Those days long gone. So a question : Is there an integrated amp today that you like for the phono stage?
 
Top Bottom