Good early to mid 70's ss receiver?

[djk]

"They sound better than those old receivers anyway."

 

An old receiver that has fresh caps will likely sound better than most of the newer receivers.

 

I suspect the CMOS switching and volume controls are the biggest problem with the sound on most inexpensive modern gear.

 

The old receivers with PIN diode switching sounded far, far better (Tandberg comes to mind).

Edited August 30, 2014 by djk

[willland]

Maybe not as beautiful and having the "it" factor(at least visually) but the 80's Luxman receivers are incredible.  The flagship R-117(160w/ch) is the one to have but you can't go wrong with either of the remaining models of the line, R-115(70w/ch), R-114(50w/ch), R-113(35w/ch).

 

The sound signature of these receivers is not overly "warmish" like 70"s Marantz but more neutral with a hint of warmth and great punch and very detailed.  The on board tuners are some of the best to ever come equipped on a receiver.  These Luxman receivers also have a lower form factor topping out at 5.5 inches tall for the R-117 and R-115.

 

Here are a couple of photos of the R-117 I sold DeanG about 1.5 years ago.

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[paul79]

 

Marantz 2252, 2265, 2285, 2330 have really been surprising me lately. These are all the number only (not 2285B for example). Beautiful sounding stuff.

FYI, with marantz, the 22xx speakers are stereo with xx watts per channel. The 23xx is stereo with 1xx watts per channel.

 

Those speakers you mention are 52 watts, 65 watts, 85 watts and 130 watts per channel stereo.

 

Speakers? These are receivers I mentioned... But you are correct about the number system. 22XX receivers wattage rating is XX per channel. 23XX is 100 watts plus XX per channel.

[Rick J B]

Maybe not as beautiful and having the "it" factor(at least visually) but the 80's Luxman receivers are incredible.  The flagship R-117(160w/ch) is the one to have but you can't go wrong with either of the remaining models of the line, R-115(70w/ch), R-114(50w/ch), R-113(35w/ch).

 

The sound signature of these receivers is not overly "warmish" like 70"s Marantz but more neutral with a hint of warmth and great punch and very detailed.  The on board tuners are some of the best to ever come equipped on a receiver.  These Luxman receivers also have a lower form factor topping out at 5.5 inches tall for the R-117 and R-115.

 

Here are a couple of photos of the R-117 I sold DeanG about 1.5 years ago.

 

Bill

Bill, those Luxman units remind me a lot of the Carver reciever I had back when those first came out.

[willland]

Bill, those Luxman units remind me a lot of the Carver reciever I had back when those first came out.

 

Do a little search on the Luxman R's, especially the R-117.   No kidding, seperates-like sound and power.

 

Bill

[NBPK402]

I like the old Yamaha, and Onkyo receivers.

Here is a pretty inexpensive one... http://sacramento.craigslist.org/ele/4640308531.html

I used to have the Yamaha CR2020.

Here is a 1020... http://classicreceivers.com/yamaha-cr-1020

Edited August 30, 2014 by ellisr63

[Rick J B]

buy something new then. Any amp the age that you are describing will need to have all the electrolytic capacitors replaces in order to be reliable and safe to use (as in not blow up your speakers).

 

Moray, understood. Yeah if a guy is just interested in a plug and play situation a new Yamaha for $150 makes the most sense and would probably sound good to my 54 year old ears. But, it wouldn't have the built in fun or ols school appearance of a vintage unit.

 

The issue of the old caps is certainly a valid concern. With that in mind, what (ballpark) does it cost to have the caps replaced in an older receiver?

[Zim.]

x

[russ69]

An old receiver that has fresh caps will likely sound better than most of the newer receivers.

I dumped my early 70s receivers, well....back in the early seventies. They were fine for a young guy just starting to build a good system but a simple change to separates, was a big step up. Just adding a power amp to the receiver made a giant change for the better. Except for the visual appeal of vintage receivers, the seventies solid state receivers did not sound that great, IMHO. The smoother sound of even the cheapest modern receivers is a good match for Klipsch and an affordable purchase.  I understand vintage gear, his application would be perfect for a tube receiver....just saying.

Edited August 30, 2014 by russ69

[Rick J B]

 

An old receiver that has fresh caps will likely sound better than most of the newer receivers.

I dumped my early 70s receivers, well....back in the early seventies. They were fine for a young guy just starting to build a good system but a simple change to separates, was a big step up. Just adding a power amp to the receiver made a giant change for the better. Except for the visual appeal of vintage receivers, the seventies solid state receivers did not sound that great, IMHO. The smoother sound of even the cheapest modern receivers is a good match for Klipsch and an affordable purchase.  I understand vintage gear, his application would be perfect for a tube receiver....just saying.

 

 

Russ, I hear you. I'd love a Fisher tube receiver, but by the time they're gone through by someone competent they get real spendy.

[beeker]

Im gonna simply suggest a good ss receiver is the one you can find locally that's most reasonably priced that functions properly then rely on the speakers to reproduce the playback material you listen to. Most units iv found locally I fealt was meant to be mine. Searching and looking to much has led me to receivers that just don't do the job. Good luck on the hunt!

 

On the other hand if your patient then the suggestions on this thread are great!

[mustang guy]

 

 

Marantz 2252, 2265, 2285, 2330 have really been surprising me lately. These are all the number only (not 2285B for example). Beautiful sounding stuff.

FYI, with marantz, the 22xx speakers are stereo with xx watts per channel. The 23xx is stereo with 1xx watts per channel.

 

Those speakers you mention are 52 watts, 65 watts, 85 watts and 130 watts per channel stereo.

 

Speakers? These are receivers I mentioned... But you are correct about the number system. 22XX receivers wattage rating is XX per channel. 23XX is 100 watts plus XX per channel.

 

oops, i meant receivers. I got my mind on my speakers, and my speakers on my mind...  

[Rick J B]

Anyone have an opinion of the H.H. Scott Stereomaster 342 receiver?

[willland]

Go check this 80's Denon integrated amp out.

 

http://stlouis.craigslist.org/ele/4595901736.html

 

I have owned four different Denon integrated amps(PMA's) from the 80's and all had superior build quality, wonderfully neutral and detailed sound quality, and very reliable.  I used them to drive Heresys, Heresy IIs, forte's, Quartets, and RB-35s. The PMA-1520 even has a built in DAC and specs at 120w/ch.  I would be all over this one if it was listed in my local Craigslist.

 

http://www.thevintageknob.org/denon-PMA-1520.html

 

Bill

Edited August 30, 2014 by willland

[ACM]

Some encouragement from my own experiences....I have found that most 70's, esp mid-late 70's receivers need little more than some de-oxit worked into the controls and an occasional bulb replaced to function safely, and often sound quite good at that. I have little doubt that the sonics can improve with a recap but, IME, you can get an idea of the character of that receiver, and if favorable, have a tech go through it. For an office system, where critical listening is not really going to happen, I would think that you will probably be satisfied with a number of quality 70's receivers with a simple cleaning of controls.

 

The big Pioneers are nice, I really enjoyed a SX980 with my Cornwalls, but they command high prices more often than not. If using relatively efficient speakers, i.e. any Klipsch, I would look at NAD7020, HK Twin Power models like the 430, 630, 730, or one that's usually way off the radar, Phillips 7851. These are just examples that I have had personal experience with and are usually not as pricey as the better known Marantz, Pioneer, Sansui, etc. I'm sure there are many others.

 

Of course, you may pick up one of these and it blow a transistor during the 1st song, but that hasn't been my experience. Old tube gear, on the other hand, really always needs a recap, at the very least.

[russ69]

Russ, I hear you. I'd love a Fisher tube receiver, but by the time they're gone through by someone competent they get real spendy.

 

Because they sound better and people want them perhaps? Yeah, budgets are a PIA.

[alexg5775]

I have heard many modern receivers like Pioneer, denon, HK, onkyo; although non have been the flagship model or super high end and they all sound ok at best. Power rating are somehow over rated, i just dont like how they sound once volume knob passes half way, poor build quality, they sound thin, not as detailed, to me. If you get your self a recapped marantz, sansui, pioneer (just to name a few) i think they offer superior sonics and build quality. I have a NOS valve restored fisher 500c and this thing sounds jaw dropping good. You can get your self one of these fisher on ebay say for 400-500 on ebay, send it to Craig at NOS valve for like another ~500 (depending on what you want done to it) have it restored and with fairly efficient speakers i think VERY hard to beat. Same for these other SS receivers. Well worth the research and little work done to find your self a good tech, if unit has not been restored yet. These are my 2 cents.

 

Alex

[Rick J B]

 

Russ, I hear you. I'd love a Fisher tube receiver, but by the time they're gone through by someone competent they get real spendy.

 

Because they sound better and people want them perhaps? Yeah, budgets are a PIA.

 

 

Absolutely.

[Kent T]

McIntosh MAC 1700, Klipsch Heritage's best SS friend or a good old Sansui 4000. The fewer the IC, the lower the damping, the better the best from Hope can sound. 

[Rick J B]

Wow, thanks for the excellent input folks.

 

Differing perspectives from multiple directions equals good food for thought. These things are always best thought through and approached with a bit of patience.

 

I've been watching on ePay, and looking else where, to get an idea of whats out there and at what price points they fall out at. Once I secure someone who is comfortable recaping and going through a vintage receiver and I know what makes they're proficient with, I plan to get one in nice physical condition and have it gone through before I put into use.

 

I have no issue with the high power brutes, but big wattage isn't a necessity. As I type I'm listening to a pair of little Klipsch SB-1's with a 2 watt spud amp and its plenty loud. I'll either use these or obtain a pair of Heresy's. My little office is only 10' x 14' with a 10' ceiling.

 

Marantz, HK, Sansui and early SS Scott receivers is what I've been following.

 

Now I just need to find a tech who enjoys working on these.