Marantz 2220b, Have u ever used it? What do u think? Options

[/\/ephaestous]

Hi Everyone

I've been using this amp for about all my life (my parents got it in 1976, (it was new then)) and I have allways thought it sounded very hi-fi (very cliche!! ). i recently almost replaced it with a mid-priced equipment but I was extremely dissapointed, so I returned it. So my question is:

Should I replace it? if so what mid-priced amp could I get (I care about quality)(Well sort of ) ?

Thanks


Nephaestous

[ssamadhi97]

hmm.. define mid-priced, please?

with what kind of equipment did you replace it?

[/\/ephaestous]

I replaced it with a Philips Streamium MC-i200.

For me mid-priced means under $1000. (thousand dollars).

Not a "audiophile" quality standard.

Nephaestous

[Demodave]

Many of the amps from the 70's era were (are) amazing. Back then, amps didn't use IC's. It was nothing but discrete transistors and capacitors. They sounded really good! They could produce, faithfully, from 1 Hertz to 100,000 Hertz. A good turntable / cartridge combination could yield a frequency response to about 45,000 Hertz. While we can't hear that high, many have the opinion that those higher frequencies add harmonics that give a certain type of depth to the sound. This is why vinyl sounds better than CD. I've heard the difference and it's true.

Getting back to the original point....many of today's amps are made to include every possible digital feature. Unfortunately, they have sacrificed the quality of the amplifiers to do this. Sure they sound *good*. But they don't have that sweet sound of the older amps.

There are some good amps still made in the <$1000 price range. If you're looking for a surround sound digital reciever, check out the Denon line. A friend bought the AVR-1802 last year for $500; and it sounds damn good for the money! Now Denon is making the AVR-1803 for the same price with a tad more power. I haven't heard it, but I assume that it will sound just as good. If you just need an amplifier, check out Rotel. They make some of the most amazing sounding amplifiers; and they're very inexpensive. I pitted a $600 Rotel amp against a Sony ES $1200 power amp; and the Rotel blew the Sony ES model out of the water.

Basically, there are some great sounding amps still available. You just really got to hunt for them. I hope that these opinions expressed have helped a bit.

This post has been edited by Demodave: Nov 4 2002, 07:57

[/\/ephaestous]

Well, yes really.

It was really helpfull, thought I believe I'll keep my old amp (mostly because I don't need 5.1 channels)

But thanks.

[KikeG]

For me mid-priced means under $1000. (thousand dollars).

!!!

Any good $300-$400 amplifier is already transparent under non-extreme loads, IMO.

[KikeG]

A good turntable / cartridge combination could yield a frequency response to about 45,000 Hertz.

Hardly possible back here in real world.

While we can't hear that high, many have the opinion that those higher frequencies add harmonics that give a certain type of depth to the sound.  This is why vinyl sounds better than CD.  I've heard the difference and it's true.

Sorry, it's wrong. It's due to other things (distortion), and not to the poor frequency response of vinyl.

[bfourney]

Man, they don't make em like that anymore. This is probably somewhat of a collectors item depending on what kind of condition it's in etc. It even has the famed Marantz tuning wheel:



It's not an amp but a reciever, so you mean you would need a new reciever not just an amp right? Or do you already have a preamp and tuner? The choice of amp or reciever largely depends on your speakers and how large your room is and your listening habits. I'm sure you can find one that foots the bill for less than a grand. Be warned however, if you are looking for a reciever none today will be built nearly as well built as what you already have for less than $1000. You will gain some modern conveniences like a remote control and digital tuner though.

Bryn4ne

This post has been edited by bfourney: Nov 4 2002, 11:09

[Pearson]

You could probably get an amp that outperforms the Marantz if you've got a $1000 budget, but as has been said, many 70s amps were extremely well built, and if you don't need the features of a newer amplifier and you're satisfied with the sound of the Marantz I should say that you'd stick with it.

@ KikeG:
What do you mean by 'the poor frequency response of vinyl'? I thought Demodave's point was that the frequency range of a good turntable setup was greater than of the CD system.

[KikeG]

@ KikeG:
What do you mean by 'the poor frequency response of vinyl'? I thought Demodave's point was that the frequency range of a good turntable setup was greater than of the CD system.

It is not. Theorically it can go beyond 20 KHz, but in practice it seems that frequencies over 16 KHz are very limited so that the cutting needle used for the vinyl master doesn't overheat. CD, on the other side, goes nearly flat up to 20 KHz and even 21-22 KHz in most cases.

Also, frequency response of vinyl, apart form going more or less high, is far from flat compared to cd audio, it has big frequency desviations that can vary a lot from turntable to turntable depending on many factors such as capsule, arm resonances, RIAA eq. of the preamp, etc.

Edit: you can see some measurements, including frequency response, on a Rega turntable at http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/index.htm

This post has been edited by KikeG: Nov 4 2002, 14:28

[Pearson]

Theorically it can go beyond 20 KHz, but in practice it seems that frequencies over 16 KHz are very limited so that the cutting needle used for the vinyl master doesn't overheat.

Is half-speed mastering a way to reduce the overheat problem? (Not that I'm going to argue with you about the limits of vinyl; I'm just curious)

[KikeG]

Is half-speed mastering a way to reduce the overheat problem?

According to what I've read, half-speed mastering if a quite difficult mastering techique, and not very commonly used.

[/\/ephaestous]

Ok, thanks everyone

first, please don't turn my l'il question into another cd vs vinil thread.

second: Yes that's my reciever (I've called it amp all my life. ( poor lingo ), and by the way is in extremely good condition (somewhat stained in near the volume knob (the first one after the power switch). does anyone know what kind of solution could I use for cleaning (alcohol didn't do the trick)

Long live the parentesis.

Cheers

Nephaestous

[fewtch]

@ KikeG:
What do you mean by 'the poor frequency response of vinyl'? I thought Demodave's point was that the frequency range of a good turntable setup was greater than of the CD system.

It is not. Theorically it can go beyond 20 KHz, but in practice it seems that frequencies over 16 KHz are very limited so that the cutting needle used for the vinyl master doesn't overheat. CD, on the other side, goes nearly flat up to 20 KHz and even 21-22 KHz in most cases.

Also, frequency response of vinyl, apart form going more or less high, is far from flat compared to cd audio, it has big frequency desviations that can vary a lot from turntable to turntable depending on many factors such as capsule, arm resonances, RIAA eq. of the preamp, etc.

Edit: you can see some measurements, including frequency response, on a Rega turntable at http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/index.htm

It never ceases to amaze me that someone can shout about the importance of actual listening, blind testing and etc. when it comes to audio codecs, but when it comes to "Vinyl vs. CD" rely entirely on frequency graphs, written words about vinyl mastering (what year & pressing plant?) and various other theoretical stuff -- probably without ever having heard better than a $100 turntable, or a $30 cartridge. Oh well.

BTW, the Rega Planar 2 is considered an old, quite inexpensive (some would say cheap) turntable by many people seriously into vinyl (especially with the RB-100 tonearm listed at the link, which dates the turntable as *ancient*). The fact that it may be a little better than a mid-70's plastic chug-chug BSR table doesn't say very much (nor do those frequency graphs... when will people learn that you can't listen to graphs?).

P.S. I don't mean to start a vinyl vs. CD thing either, but this kind of 'lazy reasoning' (especially from someone involved with an ABX software) I find a bit irritating. I won't carry it beyond this post.

This post has been edited by fewtch: Nov 5 2002, 09:19

[Andavari]

If you're happy with it and since it's in good condition I'd say hang onto it.

I don't think any modern equipment will last as long as your Marantz has since things are made in quantity nowadays whereas back in the 70's era many products especially audio equipment were about quality.

[KikeG]

@fetchw:

You're right, I've never auditioned a good turntable/cartridge combination. My old Technics turntable sounds quite crappy compared to cd, but it is not very good.

But what I'm intending to say, is that, technically, vinyl it is quite worse than cd, as opposed to what some people here were claiming about its better frequency response.

About graphs and the like, take into account that devices aimed to be linear systems such as hi-fi equipment are more subject to analyze via objective tests (measurements), because, opposed to codecs, they are 'dumb' devices that respond the same way to any signal, so tests with simple signals are a valid and representative way to characterize its performance.

Codecs, on the other side, vary their behaviour depending on the signal feed and 'adapt' to it in a very complex manner, so objective tests with simple signals are not very useful.

But, as you say, at last what really counts are listening tests, but in case of vinyl, I think that given its frequency response, among other things, it is quite easily ABXable against other devices, including other vinyl audio devices.

This post has been edited by KikeG: Nov 5 2002, 13:11

[smg]

Amplifier
RMS Power Per Channel 20 @ 8, or 4 ohms, 12 @ 16 ohms
Damping Factor @ Load Impedance 45
Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) 0.5%
Power Bandwidth 20 Hz to 20 kHz
Frequency Response 10 Hz to 50k +/- 1 dB
Signal to Noise Ratio 87 dB
Intermodulation Distortion (IM) 0.9%



FM Tuner
RF Sensitivity 3.0 uV
75 Ohm Binding Posts Yes
75 Ohm F Connector Yes
50 dB quieting sensitivity, Stereo 50 uV
Ultimate Quieting 60 dB
THD, Stereo 0.50%
Frequency Response 50 Hz to 15 kHz
Capture Ratio 3.0 dB
Stereo Subcarrier Rejection 60 dB
Alternate Channel Selectivity (wide or normal) 50 dB
Stereo Separation at 1 kHz 40 dB
Mono Switch Yes
Signal Strength Meter Yes
Muting Switch

This unit was not one of the higher end Marantz although very capable. I would not get rid of it, it would cost alot to get something that equals it in quality IMHO
BTW if you do plan on getting rid of it let me know I collect 70's recievers

[fewtch]

@fetchw:

You're right, I've never auditioned a good turntable/cartridge combination. My old Technics turntable sounds quite crappy compared to cd, but it is not very good.

But what I'm intending to say, is that, technically, vinyl it is quite worse than cd, as opposed to what some people here were claiming about its better frequency response.

About graphs and the like, take into account that devices aimed to be linear systems such as hi-fi equipment are more subject to analyze via objective tests (measurements), because, opposed to codecs, they are 'dumb' devices that respond the same way to any signal, so tests with simple signals are a valid and representative way to characterize its performance.

Codecs, on the other side, vary their behaviour depending on the signal feed and 'adapt' to it in a very complex manner, so objective tests with simple signals are not very useful.

But, as you say, at last what really counts are listening tests, but in case of vinyl, I think that given its frequency response, among other things, it is quite easily ABXable against other devices, including other vinyl audio devices.

I don't agree that vinyl *as a general case* has a worse frequency response than CD (at least, I don't think your arguments hold water). Vinyl is extremely dependent on both what's on the record and the playback equipment, and as you say it varies widely between cartridges, and also things like stylus rake angle, VTA, VTF (vertical tracking angle & force), cartridge alignment/overhang, cartridge azimuth & zenith, phono preamp, and cable capacitance with MM carts... possible variances are *many*, perhaps hundreds (IMHO this variance is a *good thing* allowing tailoring of the sound to fit preferences, but that's a different argument).

Anyway, I've heard it said that frequencies above 16 KHz on CD aren't as well represented by the bits as lower frequencies, e.g. more reconstruction of the waveform has to be done with a potential 'harshness' in the upper frequencies. I'll admit right away that this is only hear-say, I'm not an expert on digital audio -- but there are a lot of folks claiming that redbook CD can sound harsh and unrealistic in the upper frequencies (why would they make that up out of thin air? There's no purpose to imagine harshness if there isn't any). Also, digital doesn't seem to represent some instruments as well as analog... for example, the sound of massed violins can be like a screetching instead of being able to hear the sound smoothly and naturally. I don't know why this is, but it's audible to me and others. These issues could be due to bad digital mastering, I'll be the first to admit.

Anyway... technically, vinyl (let's say analog) may be worse than CD (let's say digital) -- given measurements. If we had machines listening to CD's containing test tones, undoubtedly the machines would really "groove" to the tones, given the (theoretical) lack of distortion & inky black background. When humans compare top vinyl gear with top CD gear, often they either can't pick the difference, or they may prefer the sound of the vinyl. Some blind (not double-blind though) tests have been done, but I don't have any links handy.

I didn't mean to get into this further, but since I wrote this post I'll hit "Submit." Personally I don't care what people listen to... if a clock radio on AM frequencies (or god forbid, Blade MP3 at 128kbps) is musically enjoyable to someone, the more power to them. The best sound I've ever heard has been at live concerts, a purely "analog" venue.

Cheers,

fewtch

This post has been edited by fewtch: Nov 5 2002, 18:26

[ssamadhi97]

Anyway, I've heard it said that frequencies above 16 KHz on CD aren't as well represented by the bits as lower frequencies, e.g. more reconstruction of the waveform has to be done with a potential 'harshness' in the upper frequencies.
[...]
Also, digital doesn't seem to represent some instruments as well as analog...

Nyquist + Shannon strike again.. you can mathematically prove that this is not the case.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist-Shan...ampling_theorem


i trust your experience with analog & digital music, so i'd guess that said differences are rather a problem of bad mastering..

This post has been edited by ssamadhi97: Nov 5 2002, 20:13

[fewtch]

Anyway, I've heard it said that frequencies above 16 KHz on CD aren't as well represented by the bits as lower frequencies, e.g. more reconstruction of the waveform has to be done with a potential 'harshness' in the upper frequencies.
[...]
Also, digital doesn't seem to represent some instruments as well as analog...

Nyquist + Shannon strike again.. you can mathematically prove that this is not the case.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist-Shan...ampling_theorem


i trust your experience with analog & digital music, so i'd guess that said differences are rather a problem of bad mastering..

Fair enough... most of the time when I hear the problem mentioned it's with CD's from the mid 90's and earlier, so it very well could be mastering issues. Again, I have to stress that this is hear-say on my part... I haven't actually listened to a CD played back (in its original format, without being ripped & encoded) for quite a long time, and I don't remember if I heard the harshness or not .

There is something about vinyl playback that keeps my interest in the music a lot longer (I'll state that a bit differently than saying CD's cause me 'listener fatigue') -- maybe it is distortion. If so, it's distortion I really wouldn't want to do without.

This post has been edited by fewtch: Nov 5 2002, 22:11

[Xenion]

JA!!!
I've got two of these amps too. But mine have a few more buttons and switches but it loooks the same.

[KikeG]

fetchw:

I don't agree that vinyl *as a general case* has a worse frequency response than CD (at least, I don't think your arguments hold water).

I think that, as a general case, it has. Any medium priced cd player has, straight from the factory, flat frequency response within less that 1 dB from 20 Hz to 20 KHz. Vinyl, on the other hand, has too many factors that can influence its frequency response, and to set up a system that matches frequency response of one of this cd players would be a very difficult thing, maybe impossible.

Also, as ssamadhi97 pointed out, there is no inherent problem for digital with high frequencies, in fact cd can play flawlessly frequencies up to 20-21 KHz.

As to vinyl sounding better on some things than cd, I think this can be true, but is something totally subjective and dependent on the listener, being the possible "fault" on how the mastering has been done on the cd. The proof for this is that if you record this smooth sound of massed violins that you point out, with a good sound card and play it digitally, it will sound just as smooth as in the vinyl.

As to measurements, is is just a way to know how "ideal" or "perfect" is the device, and has nothing to do with personal preference for a type of sound. If you aim is maximum accuracy, then measurements give you valuable information. If you go for a particular type of sound, then you have to rely exclusively on your ear.

Some people prefer the characteristic sound of vinyl, and some people find vinyl artifacts (surface noise, pops and clicks) annoying. I don't have any problem with you or anybody prefering the sound of the vinyl, however, this must not be blamed on cd poorest technical performance, because this is simply not true.

[Pearson]

A link to some nice pictures of older Marantz gear:

http://www.retroaudio.ru/marantz/index.shtml

[smg]

A link to some nice pictures of older Marantz gear:

http://www.retroaudio.ru/marantz/index.shtml

Great Link Pearson.  Icollect older gear and that was the firsr time I saw this link.  Check out my system Marantz 2600

Great Link Pearson. Icollect older gear and that was the firsr time I saw this link. Check out my system Marantz 2600

[Pearson]

Check out my system Marantz 2600

Wow, smg!!!

Those Marantz units with oscilloscope don't turn up every day!

My old receiver is a bit more modest, a 1973 Harman/Kardon 930 (haven't found any picture on the net). A top of the line Marantz would be very nice to have...