Mac receivers from that era are a POS compared to a 2325, or even a 2275. Pretty much all solid state McIntosh receivers and integrated amps from the '60s, '70s, and '80s are vastly outclassed in sophistication and build quality by their Japanese competitors. I do know the 1500 is tube based, but still kind of a POS by comparison to just about any '70s Japanese receiver.
Last edited:
How so? Be specific, if you have the time.
I wouldnt think anything McIntosh made would fall into the "POS" category. I thought they were vehemently anti-POS in product philosophy. Stuff like autotransformer outputs, instead of internal fuses sprinkled about the amp PCB. I must have missed my turn to smoke...
I had a 4240 in my 20s. It served and looked pretty is all I can remember about it.
I wouldnt think anything McIntosh made would fall into the "POS" category. I thought they were vehemently anti-POS in product philosophy. Stuff like autotransformer outputs, instead of internal fuses sprinkled about the amp PCB. I must have missed my turn to smoke...
I had a 4240 in my 20s. It served and looked pretty is all I can remember about it.
One thing about Mac receivers, integrated amps, and preamps from that era was that they had absolute junkshit garbage volume pots that never tracked the two channels together properly.
Specifically with receivers up through the 4100, which was produced until 1985, the comparable Japanese units were better in pretty much every way. Better build quality, better fit and finish, more advanced and sophisticated design.
Let's compare a middle of the line Pioneer SX-850 from 1975 with the 4100 from '78. The Pioneer has better quality pots and switches, a nice extruded face with real glass, four output transistors per channel in a 65 watt per channel receiver. The Mac only has two. The Pioneer has larger power supply, solid machined aluminum knobs that weren't ordered from the McMaster-Carr catalogue, a dedicated, well finished chassis, and superior fit and finish.
I will give the 4100 the nod for having a very sensitive tuner. You have to go up the Japanese receiver model line a bit to match its performance.
Compare it with something like a Pioneer SX-1010 from 1974, and the Pioneer superior in every possible way. Never mind a statement piece like the SX-1250.
Specifically with receivers up through the 4100, which was produced until 1985, the comparable Japanese units were better in pretty much every way. Better build quality, better fit and finish, more advanced and sophisticated design.
Let's compare a middle of the line Pioneer SX-850 from 1975 with the 4100 from '78. The Pioneer has better quality pots and switches, a nice extruded face with real glass, four output transistors per channel in a 65 watt per channel receiver. The Mac only has two. The Pioneer has larger power supply, solid machined aluminum knobs that weren't ordered from the McMaster-Carr catalogue, a dedicated, well finished chassis, and superior fit and finish.
I will give the 4100 the nod for having a very sensitive tuner. You have to go up the Japanese receiver model line a bit to match its performance.
Compare it with something like a Pioneer SX-1010 from 1974, and the Pioneer superior in every possible way. Never mind a statement piece like the SX-1250.
It's mostly about the looks and changing light bulbs to color LEDs. Most people do not listen critically and simply want to enjoy the music and have some form of tone controls and functionality.
Without commenting on sound Q, I will say that the aesthetics of the late 50s through mid-70s “HiFi” equipment really beats modern stuff. Just look at that Marantz reciever in the OP! That blue glow in the dialglass presages the PassDIY blue LEDs so favored by builders on this forum, IMO.
My Scott integrated tube amp, although getting cranky due to switch and pot corrosion, still sounds better than most of the junk passed of as sound equipment for the uneducated consumer. Stopping rarely into the hi end shop (yes, they still exist), there is contest between the $20-40K plus system (and sometimes component) cost. But my late 1950s Scott does well, and is not unduly embarrassed. I think it is all a matter of choosing the high Q equipment of whatever vintage. If one thinks otherwise, great! You are thankfully free to follow your heart and mind’s desire. No need to criticize other people’s choices, at least in a condescending way.
My Scott integrated tube amp, although getting cranky due to switch and pot corrosion, still sounds better than most of the junk passed of as sound equipment for the uneducated consumer. Stopping rarely into the hi end shop (yes, they still exist), there is contest between the $20-40K plus system (and sometimes component) cost. But my late 1950s Scott does well, and is not unduly embarrassed. I think it is all a matter of choosing the high Q equipment of whatever vintage. If one thinks otherwise, great! You are thankfully free to follow your heart and mind’s desire. No need to criticize other people’s choices, at least in a condescending way.
It's a general trend in fashion and design and escape from a laboratory /dentist office designs and boring nouveau riche pseudo modern style. Sooner it dies the better.
Well, it sounds like you know more about it than I do. I recall the Marantz controls were quite nice to handle; certainly didnt have a junk feel, like the gyro tuning dial. I'm pretty sure I had a Marantz 140 back in the 90s, another beauty IMHO; like this - https://www.ebay.com/itm/313788983520
I've got an old Marantz 240 [ built in USA ] that has been in storage for so long that I wouldn't trust the filter/storage capacitors.
Because it is mains-wired for 220vac, and I live @ 240vac it actually has more than usual power output.
Given the high price they fetch, maybe I should think about selling it (?)
I always wished I had the 250 with its beautiful power meters.
PS.
I now use a Mackie M-1400 that is much higher quality and 'runs rings' around the Marantz 😉
Because it is mains-wired for 220vac, and I live @ 240vac it actually has more than usual power output.
Given the high price they fetch, maybe I should think about selling it (?)
I always wished I had the 250 with its beautiful power meters.
PS.
I now use a Mackie M-1400 that is much higher quality and 'runs rings' around the Marantz 😉
Well, I did both McIntosh and Marantz warranty along with many others. I've owned both and continue to service them for others.
McIntosh build quality and reliability has always been extremely good. Marantz was variable. Near the Philips era and during quality suffered. Later Marantz units restored the build quality. For the non-Philips Marantz I don't think you can go too far wrong. The SM-6 cooks the PCB, the switches in the 3650 and SC-9 go bad, try cleaning them. With McIntosh, those just keep on going.
For sound quality, I'll take a Marantz. Right from the 500 on up. The 240/250 can be fun to service properly as they can be unstable. Solid otherwise. I have a 250, 300DC, 170DC, all fine tuned. But for a tuner, McIntosh or Revox.
Cosmetically speaking, Marantz seems to strike a cord with most people (me included) as long as they are restored properly. I like McIntosh, and keeping the same look was brilliant of them. The glass panels can be a problem, thankfully McIntosh was remanufacturing them last I knew. Both can have their sound quality improved (not by component swaps).
So if you like McIntosh, you aren't alone. Great stuff. If you like Marantz, again great stuff and you are not alone. As for prices, I questioned the soaring prices on Marantz (dragging many other brands along up). But when you sit and think about it, there isn't anything made today to replace the sound and quality of a classic Marantz receiver. If they are improved, how do you beat that? I guess the prices reflect the dwindling supply of product and the realization that the public has been sold substandard stuff for decades now. The cost of building anything close today will be more than the selling prices of this classic gear. So I hate to say it, buying a non-messed with Marantz or McIntosh and having it properly serviced (maybe improved) represents excellent value. In addition, they will outlast most of what you can buy today.
Things are different in separates. Today you can buy a Bryston 3 or 4B cubed - but look at the prices you'll be paying. That stuff does outperform most everything else, and will last. Suddenly Marantz prices look more reasonable.
McIntosh build quality and reliability has always been extremely good. Marantz was variable. Near the Philips era and during quality suffered. Later Marantz units restored the build quality. For the non-Philips Marantz I don't think you can go too far wrong. The SM-6 cooks the PCB, the switches in the 3650 and SC-9 go bad, try cleaning them. With McIntosh, those just keep on going.
For sound quality, I'll take a Marantz. Right from the 500 on up. The 240/250 can be fun to service properly as they can be unstable. Solid otherwise. I have a 250, 300DC, 170DC, all fine tuned. But for a tuner, McIntosh or Revox.
Cosmetically speaking, Marantz seems to strike a cord with most people (me included) as long as they are restored properly. I like McIntosh, and keeping the same look was brilliant of them. The glass panels can be a problem, thankfully McIntosh was remanufacturing them last I knew. Both can have their sound quality improved (not by component swaps).
So if you like McIntosh, you aren't alone. Great stuff. If you like Marantz, again great stuff and you are not alone. As for prices, I questioned the soaring prices on Marantz (dragging many other brands along up). But when you sit and think about it, there isn't anything made today to replace the sound and quality of a classic Marantz receiver. If they are improved, how do you beat that? I guess the prices reflect the dwindling supply of product and the realization that the public has been sold substandard stuff for decades now. The cost of building anything close today will be more than the selling prices of this classic gear. So I hate to say it, buying a non-messed with Marantz or McIntosh and having it properly serviced (maybe improved) represents excellent value. In addition, they will outlast most of what you can buy today.
Things are different in separates. Today you can buy a Bryston 3 or 4B cubed - but look at the prices you'll be paying. That stuff does outperform most everything else, and will last. Suddenly Marantz prices look more reasonable.
Hi Audio>X,
Check your B+ voltages and bias currents. That higher voltage might be a problem, maybe not. You can bring it up on a variac slowly to re-form the supply capacitors.
One thing to be aware of. There are silver/grey coloured axial capacitors on the amp PCBs. Those are wet slug tantalum capacitors, far superior to electrolytic and expensive as heck to replace. They are also smaller than modern electrolytic caps, do not use radials. If you find bad ones, you can try Poly-Aluminum axial capacitors instead. It drives me nuts to see "recap kings" who replace them without any clue as to what they did. No matter what electrolytic capacitor you install in their place, they are inferior.
-Chris
Check your B+ voltages and bias currents. That higher voltage might be a problem, maybe not. You can bring it up on a variac slowly to re-form the supply capacitors.
One thing to be aware of. There are silver/grey coloured axial capacitors on the amp PCBs. Those are wet slug tantalum capacitors, far superior to electrolytic and expensive as heck to replace. They are also smaller than modern electrolytic caps, do not use radials. If you find bad ones, you can try Poly-Aluminum axial capacitors instead. It drives me nuts to see "recap kings" who replace them without any clue as to what they did. No matter what electrolytic capacitor you install in their place, they are inferior.
-Chris
@anatech Having worked on a ton of this stuff, I have never been impressed with McIntosh integrated amps and receivers. They just weren't up to the standard of the Japanese receivers and integrated amps. Their power amps were always great. Well made, good sounding, reliable. Though, a little primitive in overall build. No component silk screening on the boards, sheet metal shop chassis, and quasi-complementary topography into almost the 1980s. But still great amps.
Their preamps always pissed me off for having the most garbage volume control pots ever put into a piece of audio equipment, and having a loudness function that was totally unusable.
That said, I once had a MX-113 that by some miracle actually had a good volume control, and I really liked it. It's the one piece of Mac gear that I ever regret selling off.
Circa 2010, I had a Bryston 4BST for a couple of years. That was the most lackluster, ho-hum amp I've had other than maybe a Yamaha M-60 or M-70. I was all hyped up to get that Bryston, and was so disillusioned with it. I picked up a Harman/Kardon 1.5, and it blew the Bryston right out of the water. Hell, a Marantz 2385 sounds better and more powerful than that 4BST.
Their preamps always pissed me off for having the most garbage volume control pots ever put into a piece of audio equipment, and having a loudness function that was totally unusable.
That said, I once had a MX-113 that by some miracle actually had a good volume control, and I really liked it. It's the one piece of Mac gear that I ever regret selling off.
Circa 2010, I had a Bryston 4BST for a couple of years. That was the most lackluster, ho-hum amp I've had other than maybe a Yamaha M-60 or M-70. I was all hyped up to get that Bryston, and was so disillusioned with it. I picked up a Harman/Kardon 1.5, and it blew the Bryston right out of the water. Hell, a Marantz 2385 sounds better and more powerful than that 4BST.
Hi AudioPackrat,
Agreed. McIntosh performance isn't top shelf, but it is very good and better than most. Volume controls were normal 1970's construction type American types, same performance.
McIntosh PCBs are made in-house I think. No silk screen. That doesn't make them any worse than a glossy PCB with markings. I think some had silkscreened component designations. I don't notice these days. Yamaha. Those guys often had no PCB markings, a pain to service.
I typically do not like Bryston products. However, I had a 4Bcubed for 3 weeks in my main system. It is better than anything I have ever had in there before. This coming from someone who wasn't a fan of Bryston. I have recommended their new products often, and those who did buy them are extremely happy. Even the preamps. Their systems are top notch.
I restore 2385 and 2500 receivers. There is zero on the market that will compare. I had a 2500 I restored in my system for weeks. Fun - yes. Sounded great, but the separates are better. Endless power from those receivers. They are extremely difficult to service in the phono / selector areas.
Agreed. McIntosh performance isn't top shelf, but it is very good and better than most. Volume controls were normal 1970's construction type American types, same performance.
McIntosh PCBs are made in-house I think. No silk screen. That doesn't make them any worse than a glossy PCB with markings. I think some had silkscreened component designations. I don't notice these days. Yamaha. Those guys often had no PCB markings, a pain to service.
I typically do not like Bryston products. However, I had a 4Bcubed for 3 weeks in my main system. It is better than anything I have ever had in there before. This coming from someone who wasn't a fan of Bryston. I have recommended their new products often, and those who did buy them are extremely happy. Even the preamps. Their systems are top notch.
I restore 2385 and 2500 receivers. There is zero on the market that will compare. I had a 2500 I restored in my system for weeks. Fun - yes. Sounded great, but the separates are better. Endless power from those receivers. They are extremely difficult to service in the phono / selector areas.
I have long held that the amp section of the 2385 is the best ever put into a home stereo receiver, and Marantz should have offered it as a stand alone power amp as an upgrade from the 300DC. I have restored a couple of 2385s, and even own one. They definitely suffer a bit from 10lbs of crap in a 5lb. bag syndrome. All those plugs and crap right behind the face plate are a bit of PITA. Good incentive to do a proper job the first time around. 😉
The 2500 is just too much in too small a package. IMO, the 2385 is a much better unit, and it really gives up very little in the way of power to the 2500. Sounds better too, IMO.
I've never met a piece of Mac gear that didn't sound good. It's just that most of it had little niggles, like the volume pots, that really annoyed me.
The 2500 is just too much in too small a package. IMO, the 2385 is a much better unit, and it really gives up very little in the way of power to the 2500. Sounds better too, IMO.
I've never met a piece of Mac gear that didn't sound good. It's just that most of it had little niggles, like the volume pots, that really annoyed me.
I was contemplating BBC LS3/5 speakers ( which I need like a hole in my head ) and of course the outrageous prices. BBC staff could get a kit version with cabinets and parts and " cobble " the speakers at home for mere 50 Pounds. I kind of failed to notice that 50 Quids back then was equivalent of 1000 pounds now.
Ps . It looks like I'm getting a BBC LS 3/5 kit after all 🙂
Ps . It looks like I'm getting a BBC LS 3/5 kit after all 🙂
No, but I have machine made to mix national time, it is made by Matsushita and has serial number. Might be it will not get you in time where you want, but it will take you somewhere in time . I can re-engineer the design🙂
Going back to my high school days, a friend's father gave me a Marantz model 7. He worked for GE in R&D and apparently brought it home after a project where they interwove stereo on a single wire for some reason. With it came a Dynaco MKII, but only one, guessing another fellow took the other. I remember having it connected to my AR turntable in my bedroom.
Being completely oblivious at the time, I didnt realize what I had. I remember using it as part of a makeshift PA for a band my friend was in. One evening its front panel took a deep scratch in handling which pissed me off; my friend said "C'mon, just a little steel wool will fix it". College and a couple years into my first EE job didnt fix my completely oblivious nature, as I traded it to someone at DEC for a <drum roll> Phase Linear 400.
Makes me wonder who has it now and/or what it last traded for...
In middle school, circa 1967-69, our band room had an Empire turntable and SME arm, Sure V15 cartridge, Dynaco PAS pre and ST70, driving Wharfedale speakers with sand-filled cabinets. Basically the same system was in my high school band room. However, we also had a Sony tape recorder and several times a friend of the band teacher hauled in an Ampex 300 1/4” half track tape recorder.
With the exception of the Ampex, all was readily available to the discerning audiophile of the time, which included many ordinary people. I think these components and manufacturers set a high standard for ordinary people’s stereo systems. I do not think that “antique” necessarily means markedly inferior, esp in terms of giving listening satisfaction rather than chasing numbers. Yes they have deficiencies but even the audiophile stuff that is affordable today has aural limitations. It is not a black and white story on the sonic quality of old versus new audio equipment.
With the exception of the Ampex, all was readily available to the discerning audiophile of the time, which included many ordinary people. I think these components and manufacturers set a high standard for ordinary people’s stereo systems. I do not think that “antique” necessarily means markedly inferior, esp in terms of giving listening satisfaction rather than chasing numbers. Yes they have deficiencies but even the audiophile stuff that is affordable today has aural limitations. It is not a black and white story on the sonic quality of old versus new audio equipment.
Back in my service work shop days I repaired two Phase Linear 400's using BGW 750 output transistors > which were in our regular parts stock.
Although I repaired, I never actually got to hear them in a critical listening situation. I did spot & hear them at a couple of live rock gigs >
What is the general opinion of the 400's in a home HiFi situation ?
There's a strange kind of irony regarding your post/advise and the use of a variac.
Back when I was one of four technicians in the Klarion Enterprises tec/service department, I became the sole technician for Marantz warranty service
for 3 years. Back then I had access to all the test equipment you could wish for, including a variac. But now at home > I have never owned a variac.
Back in those 1980's, the 'spread' of the Marantz products I was mainly servicing/repairing were >
#1 Cassette decks , #2 Turntables , #3 Amplifiers , #4 Speakers.
Interestingly, the majority of amplifiers were the 1060 & 1120 > I don't recall even one discrete high Power Amplifier.
PS.
With good quality tape, the HiFi performance of the 'double speed' cassette decks was quite astonishing > just like the BIC double speed cassette deck 🙂