After having demo'd and sold thousands of "receivers" in a Retail environment from the mid 70's to the end of the 80's (Technics, Toshiba, Rotel, Pioneer, Luxman, NAD,Telefunken, Phillips and more) ... My opinion is that they Did Not sound Great then, and the addition of 40 or 50 years has Not Done Anything to improve their "Good, but thin and unromantic" sound. High End separates, many integrated amps and custom equipment, generally (by a WIDE) margin, sounded better and represented a more accurate presentation of the intended sound.
The Golden Age receivers were often Attractive, Well Built and sported Great Specs.... but that all came at a cost due to the very competative nature of the Business and the pursuit of Great Numbers, not Great Sound.
|
I can't speak for other brands, but I owned several vintage Marantz receivers, and to me they sounded smooth and pleasing, if a little lacking in dynamics. That was a pretty good achievement for that time though, because a lot of the solid-state gear then was anything but smooth.
|
I would agree with Russ69, based on what I know now. Back in the late 60's and early 70's, I wanted to upgrade from FM radio to something better and knowing nothing better I fell upon Stereo Review. That magazine was filled with advertisements for receivers, not separates, so I purchased a Kenwood 5150 in 1972, a Dual 1215 turntable and KLH 17 speakers, all for $500.. I was happy with it until a used McIntosh MA 6200 integrated amp and a new Denon tuner became available. That's when the serious upgrading started.
|
By and large - No. I had Kenwood’s Rotel, I don’t remember them all. Never liked any of them. Or we wouldn’t have Hi- end would we? Tho for a relatively modest investment I currently get great sound. I wish I had some of the $ I spent back on that stuff as well. Between streaming and modern equipment good sound can be had pretty readily and very cost effectively. Around 10 K for normal people it can be done. Many will scoff. I would spend more if I had it.
|
The NAD 3020 I took back to my tiny apartment for a shoot-out in the mid 1970's truly sounded better than the Kenwood KW-70 receiver I'd been using for the previous several years. It didn't make one whit of difference that the NAD put out considerably less watts. It was a move that revitalized my audiophile tendencies, tendencies I'd put aside when girlfriends & dating entered my life.
|
No… that old stuff is just old stuff. I have an old Marantz, and had a couple old receivers… but they are not remotely competitive with todays high end… or any high end at any time. There was a dip in performance when point to point wiring was given over to printed circuit boards… but high end audio far surpassed old receivers… well since the advent of high end. There are a few folks that were happy with what they had… which is good for them.
|
|
“Did the Old Receivers Sound Good?”
Oh yes! Especially the ones made in West Germany.
Your mileage may vary.
|
To my 74 year old lead ears my Pioneer SX-1050 and JBL L222 Disco speakers sound just fine. 😊
|
“ …. not by today’s standards ….”
+1
They sounded good FOR THEIR TIME (/emphasis added).
I had the MARANTZ 2245 receiver with JBL L100’s back in the Jurassic Age of this hobby (the 70’s) that was considered a high-end unit for its time. It was a hit in the college dorm with floating wisps of Maui Wowee rocking out Doobie Bros, Jethro Tull, Moody Blues etc. etc. .it was a heavily coloured and exaggerated “California Sound” ( Google it ..” ) with a skewed roller coaster curve frequency response with pumped up bottom end bass and top end treble geared to the rock and pop recordings of its time.
Yep…it sounded “fine” under the wafting sedation veil of the Maui Wowee after the Coors or Molson’s beer and pizza.
The unvarnished truth is that it and all its peer “vintage” units get smoked by a modest integrated amp today.
The term “vintage” is just code for “old”, and its appeal today is just nostalgia appeal by a limited cohort reliving the fond memories of a misspent youth, but certainly NOT for any premium / “good” audio performance.
|
I have the feeling that those old receivers are still wanted for reasons like, nostalgia, looks, plenty of frills but not for the so many zeros. Could still serve for a vintage second system though.
|
|
Before the high end started...
The high end started long before there were receivers.
|
If you're driving an old gas-guzzler, your going to like them old receivers. Yes they look cool and have substance but they are not going to measure up to modern electronics. Starting in the early 90's well designed amplifiers took a big leap in sound quality. I bought a Tandberg receiver because I liked the way it looked and it was refurbished. I put it in the den. It sounded decent but it wasn't as good as what it replaced.
|
I still own several Marantz Receivers that have been kept up to par with maintenance: 2215, 2252B, and 2270. Although I like them I agree with carlsbad, not by today's standards.
|
Try s pair of contemporary speakers. That's where the REAL difference lies.
|
I love the old receivers, but seem to always be disappointed in their sound, whether refurbished or not...though some here feel they are the ultimate...
|
FWIW, I’ve felt like the sound quality of my bought-brand-new-in-1978 Pioneer SX-1250 was bettered - significantly - by every successive move to a newer amp I’ve made since 1986. In order, and (as always) to my ears, the 1986 Denon 90 wpc integrated was clearly an upgrade, the Sony GS series HT receiver that replaced the Denon in 1997 was a lateral SQ move from its immediate predecessor but also clearly better than the SX-1250, and my PrimaLuna Prologue Classic tube (2018) integrated was a truly enlightening upgrade from everything that preceded it. All of them were/are used with the same pair of JBLs (L65s) I bought in ‘78 for the SX-1250.
|
many seem to be moving back to the "specs are everything" mindset
I`ve been reading this forum since the early 2000`s and I have not noticed this happening, at all. Some, here, use the various specs as a guide.
We all hear differently, and with different tastes. The mantra, here, has been- "let your ears be the judge" .
Then somehow we decided...
So, one day, we all woke up and decided... - no, not really.
If anything, it was a progression.
It was not that the old stuff measured well, it was a better build quality. Changes started to happen, and alot of the mentioned brands evetually made cheaper components so the mass market can afford their products. During the same time, they failed to address the niche market. Changes and improvements were occurring in speaker development that the "esoteric" market readily addressed.
|
not by today's standards.
|
