As the owner of several near mint Japanese receivers from the late '60s -mid '70s (I can't resist a very clean piece of old gear, even if I don't prefer it), I must respectfully disagree with comments asserting that they are sonically good equipment. I happen to have a mint SX1250 and it is beautifully built with a substantial power supply, a very good tuner, and excellent flexibility. But, sonically it is strident with a pervasive glare which makes listening for extended periods of time unpleasant. For passive listening it is fine. But I like sound reproduction to be relatively natural in effect and most receivers of that era just don't cut it. In fact, the earlier tubed receivers were sonically superior. Do some AB comparisons and I think that you'll agree.
Vintage Receivers vs. Modern MidFi
As I was looking at classic tuners from Marantz I started to notice their receivers and I've become very interested. I'm curious what people here think about the comparision between these 'classic' receivers and modern midfi equipment. I've been considering an NAD c340 or Jolida 102b matched with a classic Marantz tuner or my current FT-11, but when I considered replacing my FT-11 I thought 'why not consider replacing my whole deal with one of these vintage receivers'. The more I look at these receivers the more I am struck by their beauty. I am too young to have ever owned one of these new, but I must admit that I am very drawn to them. In the end though it is about the sound, and I want the best I can afford. I've got about $600 to spend on tuner and amplification. So, should I get a classic Marantz(or McIntosh?) receiver or stick with my NAD/Jolida + Magnum/Classic Marantz combo, and how do these two paths match up sound wise? Your advice, concerns, confessions, and/or recommendations are warmly welcomed. Oh ya, if it matters I'm using AE Aegis speakers. Thanks. Carter.
- ...
- 15 posts total
- 15 posts total