Old Classic Receivers: A Mistake to Buy?

(disclaimer:the 4275 it is for sale).
I have a mac 4275 receiver which is from the late 80's/early 90's. It's almost laughable how good it sounds.

I also have completely stock 30 y/0 mr71 (tube), mr78, and mr80 tuners. They all sound magnificent. I bought the 71 from the original owner who only changed the tubes and had it aligned once. I can play these side by side with my hotrod scd-1 and my arc ph3 sources and they are sonically in the same general keeping (the sony rules). I'd say they sound better than 90% of the cd player's I've heard.

I do note that my 1990 denon receiver finally started to have noise with some of the inputs - probably from too many connects/disconnects. On the clean channels it sounds pretty good. Mass midfi, but good.

I would definitely stay away from the cheaper stuff.

Regarding tuners and I have tens and tens of them: The ICs found in many modern tuners can be almost impossible to repair. The MR-67/MR-71 Macs are incredible sounding tuners with gold pin Mullards or better Telefunkens and a professional alignment. I would bypass the volume control on the back of the MR-71 for better sonics. The later Mac tuners in the 70s and 80s where more about reception capability and the 90s tuners more about convenience. Its true you may want to replace some of the caps in the old MR-67/MR-71s but it is well worth it since they can not be beat for sonics from a musicality standpoint (incredible especially when you think, "my god just think how old these are") and I have had several other Stereophile Class A and B tuners. Not until you have gone through over 50 tuners can you have the confidence to make such a statement. If you have difficult reception problems then some newer designs are worth it.

i dont know. i have an old nad 3020 and sumo charlie tuner in an office system (bought in college). it sounds very good. (i also have a mac 67; in my main system; and second the above postings).

will the old receivers sound as good as new seperates? no...will they sound better than todays common receivers....my money is yes. if they break; it may be hard to repair them though.

as a last thought...i passed up a marantz receiver at a thrift shop the other day (looking for albums)...only to find it was going for 300$ on ebay for parts!!! it was 12$

someone likes their sound.

most of all....if you like the sound....who cares what anyone else thinks.

Jim

I think your friend has some valid points if you're comparing them to modern multi-thousand dollar systems, but I still wouldn't be surprised if some of those old recievers sound better than some of the stuff out there. The main thing your friend didn't consider is the fact that you can purchase a top of the line, monster reciever from the late 70s (units that cost about $1000 at the time) for less than $200...sometimes much less. I think it'd be pretty hard to buy a modern system (amp, pre, and tuner) and beat it for less than $1000, and many of the new $1000+ receivers still can't compare. Today's mass-market consumer audio gear is a complete joke in comparison. I have an old Luxman system from the 70s (M2000 amp, C1010 pre, and T-110 tuner)...it's sounds nice(perfect for a bedroom, office, second system, etc), it's built like a tank, it's extremely flexible, it hasn't been hard to repair, and the tuner is still world class (and it doesn't ever shift from the signal). I wonder...did your friend actually do any listening, or was he simply basing his opinion on some technical jargon?? The brands you mentioned were great...as were Onkyo, Luxman, and Yamaha. It is a good idea to make sure the units are clean, noise free, and in good working condition before buying, but other than that they're definitely worth investigating. If audio is your hobby, I'm sure you've probably spent $150 a lot less wisely in the past.