|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.86.136.160
There is a review in the current March '12 issue of Stereophile where the reviewer gives a completely unrestored Marantz 8B a fair-good review.His complaints were excessive hang time,slow sounding,and only fair imaging.The whole time that I was reading the review I was thinking that the amp. is being judged with old leaky power supply and coupling caps.I would be interested to know how fully restored 50 yr.old amps hold up against new tube amps.It doesn't seem like a fair review with out of spec.components.
Follow Ups:
where did he find that 8b? at the bottom of the ocean, in the titanic?
http://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-111
are these people this dumb to review an amp so obviously in need of restoration? that's like dragging a beat to death ferrari found in a barn. and saying it's a POS because it's only running on 6 out of the 12 cylinders.
Robby
We need Stereophile because it is the only magazine readily
available that features test reports.
AD damned it with faint praise. And frankly I am surprised at how well he found it to sound with just about all original parts. AD is not only no dummy but he is acutely aware of the need to restore old equipment before safe use can be assumed. Do you think he would trust his records to an unrestored TD124 or 301/401 ? So for him to review the amp as-is was a bit disingenuous at best. I think the amp in question was only in his hands for a few days before being sent to the owner....who later sold it on Ebay.
Funny thing is, SP has reviewed restored vintage pieces. The Eico HF81 was fully restored before testing. The PS and line stages were restored in the 500c, though the phono stage was not. The Advent review was a train wreck from day 1 due to all of the mistakes. Heck, I still want to read Peter Brueniger's article on the AR3a speakers. It was supposed to have been published in SP more than 2yrs ago, then in TAS when he moved there, now who knows.
I am among those who believe that properly restored vintage amps represent great sonic value. Heck I use vintage amps on a regular basis- current a pr of updated Heath W4 monoblocks.
Best,
Ross
Unfortunately pieces like the Marantz 8B start to fall into that class of collectablity and not actual use.
So if you plan on taking this thing to the grave - IMHO replace the worn out and corroded parts. And especially the electrolytic caps. Basically clean it up and make it safe so it doesn't blow itself up. What I wouldn't do is start going wild with upgrade boards trying to change out the circuitry. Keep it as true to it's sound as you can.
If you plan on selling it in the future - don't replace even a rusty screw.
Me - I would plan on keeping it for life and building a system around it.
I made plenty of mistakes over the years trying to modernize, or change tube amps. I found that there IS a point you cross where you lose the magic. I really miss some of those amps.
charles
I agree totally! When I restore amps I always choose parts that are similar to the orignals, like oil caps where there are leaking oil caps, good modern carbon film resistors to replace out of spec carbon signal path resistors, etc... And of course, overbuild the power supply. Do that and you keep the original tone of the amp and let the circuit and the iron shine through!
The old restored tube electronics are way more interesting and cooler than the new stuff to me.The fact that the iron is better made and they sound better than the new stuff is icing on the cake.
Dave
True but I think I could be happy with one of the Manley copies!
Dave
Who on earth needs Stereophile???
//m
Maybe they will become affordable for me.
A restored vs unrestored is day and night
Maybe it will drop the price on these awesome pieces
Hi, rosendds:
I still own four of thes amplifiers and have owned most of them for the better part of thrity plus years. I would never think about running one in original, untouched condition for obvious reasons. Can you say "holy expensive smoke"?
One thing that I do know is that a properly restored 8-B is one of the sweetest sounding stereo power amplifiers ever built. Yes, it is a good idea to update the seleniums, remove and replace coupling caps and also two of the under-the-chassis electrolytics and several smaller ones. Substituting some resistors here and there is also a good recommendation.
How many of you have seen charts of total harmonic distortion with a fresh pair of tubes in a restored unit versus one which had original component parts? It is more than an obvious difference, that is, measurably-lowered distortion.
Of course, once you have gone in there and done such updates, your unit is going to be worth LESS than one without (an insane situation, if you ask me personally). I paid real money in 1980 for one ($225 then), got one at a rummage sale for $25 in 1981, purchased another one from an ad around 1982 (another $225 purchase) and was GIVEN ONE for nothing in the nineties. The rest is history.
They are capable of utterly musical sound reproduction and a fairly excellent rendering of depth and width, given proper source material through an appropriate preamplifier, etc.
And, how many of you have actually experienced listening to a restored pair, strapped as monoblocks and running "triode-connected"? I have.
Outstanding sound reproduction and an expensive way to run up your power bill.
Happy listening!
Richard Links
Berkeley, CA
I would contact Marchand for an electonic tube crossoever and triamp! But that is the greedy sort of guy I am.
Dave
The review did state that other than a resistor,the amp. was all original.It's nice that they even did a review on a 1962 tube amp.,but if a reader doesn't know better,it will be easy to conclude that modern tube amps. are better.It's a shame that the magazine will not review restored vintage tube amps.,but I can understand the importance of sponsors if a magazine is to stay in business.I am quite pleased with my restored mc240 and have no doubt that the iron in the old amps kick the pants off of most modern output X-formers.I don't understand why a collector would want and value a unrestored tube amp.more than a restored one,but to each his own.At least a unrestored amp.was not screwed up by somebody that didn't know what they were doing.
Dave
In 1976, I bought a system based around Absolute Sound "Editor's choice" list or something.
The speakers were Dahlquist DQ-10's, an Audio Research SP3-A-1 preamp, and an SAE power amp. I always thought I did pretty well, and enjoyed the system.
Some years later, while going through a divorce in the mid 1980's, I joined an audio club. Another member told me he wouldn't give me 2˘ for my SAE, and loaned me his Marantz 8B to try out.
Be advised that I didn't know much about the workings of components back then. I was more of a music lover than a hobbyist. I remember two things prior to trying the 8B. One was the feeling that I might damage the DQ-10's, since the Marantz was only 35 watts (and I think Dahlquist recommended 50 WPC as a minimum, if I remember correctly). The second thing was that I figured I already had the best of both worlds, since I had tubes in the system with the ARC preamp, and the SAE amp had made it on a list, after all!
How wrong I was. The 8B opened up the Dahlquists and let me hear them like I never heard them before. I had a fondness for Marantz gear anyway (their SS stuff from my high school days), but now I knew just what a musically enjoyable difference a good tube amp could make.
I was in no financial position to buy the 8B at that time. Being unemployed and going through a divorce will do that to you. I began upgrading Dynaco tube amps as an alternative, and have been hooked on the sound (and fun) of tube amps ever since.
I've had the chance to hear two new tube amps in the last two years. And in all honesty, if I were blind folded, I don't think I could tell the difference between them and a solid state amp.
So I would put my money on a vintage tube amp being better. Maybe it was magic iron?
charles
"I would be interested to know how fully restored 50 yr.old amps hold up against new tube amps."
Properly refurbished, premium vintage amnps, like the Marantz 8B, H/K Cit. 2, and several McIntosh models, beat the living guano out of tube amps currently being produced. O/P transformer quality is a major reason.
"It doesn't seem like a fair review with out of spec.components."
Damned right, the deck was stacked. There's nothing new about "the pile" kowtowing to their advertisers.
Eli D.
the original and the re-issue Marantz 9 on the dealer who happens to own both of them. As far as we are concerned, the original Marantz 9 sounded lush and velvety, as tube amp should with warm midbass, however, when we start comparing them to each other, things got a little clearer in a hurry. The re-issue was much better in terms of the overall balance of sound as it was very snappy coupled with an excellent leading edge transients response and it wasn't sluggish, or opaque on the top end as oppose to the original 9. In addition, we found that the original 9 was not as good in resolving the bottom end detail, as it tends to homogenized it.
Therefore, we concluded that the re-issue did properly address some of the shortcomings of the original 9. Perhaps, the re-issue's excellent sound was attributed to the better quality and tolerance of the parts that they were using that are available and were not available then when the original 9 came out.
Another decisive test, since the re-issue was much better sounding than the original, we decided to compare it to other tube amps that we had at hand at that time such as the Conrad Johnson, Sonic Frontiers and Audio Research. Well, definitely the re-issue more than hold its own as it beats the SF without trouble in term of refinement, however, compared to both CJ and ARC the re-issue sounded a little opaque and wooly, but ever so slightly.
So the proverbial question would be, would I buy one? Probably not!...as there are other tube amps out there that are just as good and possibly better for less than what they're asking for. But it does have that originality design looks to it such as the front cyclopean glass eye of which it was copied by many other manufacturers ever since.
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
Did you look inside the chassis of the original vs the reissue? The reissue used silver plated teflon hook up wire, and film coupling capacitors, creating a significant difference in sonic signature. In addition the original used silicon rectifiers which have a tendency to start leaking over time, and that would make a significant difference in sound over the years. Maybe that's why collectors seem to prefer the tube rectified Marantz amps (2 and 5's).
I compared the reissue 7C with my original, although I had updated capacitors and silicon diodes in my original, and I preferred my original.
The original as you point out had a more lush romantic sound, although it was not lacking in detail. The reissue, even after 200 hours of playing time, sounded very harsh and analytical: Not quite my cup of tea.
Again, YMMV
Stu
Spanking new inside the box, as his store is the sole Marantz dealer in our area at that time along with Krell, Audio Research, Conrad Johnson…and host of other high end equipment. His original Marantz was in excellent condition as well, as he likes his used equipment in top shape before he sells them that come with a warranty of 6 months, and the tubes have 3 months. This practice still continues in his store to this day.
The re-issue has all the attributes as the original with its romantic and lush sounds which made the original famous for to begin with. It’s just that at the end of the day the re-issue wins in the overall scheme of things especially when handling the difficult load speakers. Such as, the Totem Mani 2 Signature speakers, of which we thought, sounded excellent driven by the re-issue.
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
Would the much better transformers on vintage amps,chiefly apply to power amps.and not preamps?
And most* tube preamps don't have output transformers.
* I say most , because if I don't, someone will find a design with an output transformer and try and whip an "Ah HA!" on me!
the ignorance of the reviewer. In not stating or realizing the issues facing a 30+ year old amp (the 8B's were last built in 1968, IIRC), he obviously does not know the technical aspect of electronic parts components, namely that they eventually dry up and deteriorate in a span of 15 years or less. The military simply tosses replacement electrolytics sitting on the shelf after ten years, deeming it too expensive to reform and reshelf.
A more interesting review might be to use the Marantz 2 or 5 which used oil filled caps instead of electrolytics. They have an inherently longer life span.
Stu
"The pile" wouldn't dare review a "McShaned" H/K Cit. 2. ARC, CJ, et al would stop advertising, if they were at all honest. Can you say magazine floating belly up? :> D
Eli D.
I with you on this Eli, but I would like to find out in my own system. Maybe a few years or decades with an 8B, just to make sure...
Dave
I think you're being a little unfair. While I agree that reviewing an unrestored amp does not reflect how the amp sounded fresh from the factory, if they clearly described the amp as unrestored then it is simply a point of information.
They should follow up with a restoraton--all original type parts, replacing all electrolytic capacitors and out of spec components, but no upgraded capacitors or resistors, and no topology changes. That would be a totally fair--and more useful--review.
Interesting thread this...
I get stereophile because my daughter's school was selling mags as a fundraiser and I had to pick something. I don't have all that much use for a rag that reviews $50,000 gear and calls $10,000 gear cost effective. But I digress...
When I read Art Dudley's review I was tempted to write him and point out that unless he completely rebuilt the power supply it was a ridiculous comparison against a modern amp with all new parts in it. Also, the coupling caps in the modern amp are better. I don't know exactly what is in an 8b for caps, but the old Sprague bumblebees that are in old Citation gear are pretty mediocre compared to a decent modern cap. We are not talking about $40 boutique caps, just Matushitas or 716P or Illinois, or the odd K40 in places it counts. I know it would ruin the value of an 8b, but if you rebuild the PS and recapped it with modern signal caps, and replaced out of spec carbons with good carbon films, etc.. Not changing the circuit one bit except perhaps beefing up the PS capacitance it would probably stomp the living daylights out of most of the modern amps they review. I completely understand the point about every restored vintage piece being different than every other one, but a one-off review wouldn't hurt a thing except their advertisers. All those $2000 Chinese amps cannot hold a candle to say a properly restored Citation V power amp which costs less. I just did a little Fisher SA100 19 watt/ch EL84 amp with huge output trannies. With a new power supply, good caps and a good bias supply it sounded FAR better than the tired original. Same circuit and iron, just better PS and signal path parts. You do that to something like a Citation II or 8B or good Mac and it will stomp all over most of the stuff they review. Of course they wouldn't want you to know that..... and we probably don't want full page reviews proclaiming how good restored vintage gear is. Then we couldn't afford anything!
cheers,
Don
Thanks for info Steve. Never got to work on an 8B yet, although I have seen examples of most other classic amps up to this point. A guy is probably sending me a pair of them to refurbish this spring so I will get my chance. I will tread lightly, but he is keeping them so I get to re-cap them as well as rebuild the power supply. There is no way an original one could sound as good as a rebuilt one. Of course, we all know that...... I know that Art Dudley is no idiot. He knows too. Just the politics of articles in stereo mags and advertisers....
As you may be aware, the reviewer (Art Dudley) clearly described the condition of the amp and the few parts replaced due apparently to failure (a resistor in an unspecified part of the circuit and PS rectifiers). He also remarked that no other parts were in "obvious" need of replacing and were presumably not replaced. So IMO the review is pretty up-front as regards the amp’s condition.
I don't believe there will be any attempt at "restoration" for a couple of reasons: 1. The amp is the private property of a customer and is probably already in his/her hands. 2. It has been Stereophile's stated policy to NOT get into reviewing restorations of vintage audio equipment. John Atkinson (or someone on the Stereophile editorial staff) explained this after Dudley reviewed a pair of Advent loudspeakers he attempted to restore and got a ton of on-line and letters-to-the-editor grief because he didn't do it exactly as some purists imagined he should. IIRC a similar situation occurred when someone from Stereophile reviewed a relatively unrestored Fisher 500C receiver a few years ago. The reasoning goes something like this; There are so many options for replacement parts out there that no matter what was done, any restoration would be a one-of-a-kind situation and would therefore be relatively meaningless as the subject of a review other than for entertainment value.
Actually, I'm surprised this review was allowed to see the light of day based on the kerfuffle that has occurred with the last couple of vintage equipment reviews.
No topology changes, yes. As for parts, use readily available, industrial grade (not "boutique"), stuff. Then, things are as close to apples and apples as is possible. All too often, modern parts, especially PSU diodes, are superior to the stuff available in the late '50s and early '60s. Also, stuff is available now that was inconceivable back then.
Make the challenge one of design and magnetics quality. The top notch vintage amps rule the roost.
Eli D.
The reviewer did not mention that the old components could be a factor in the ratings that he gave the old Marantz.He did say that it was a learning experience to hear the old amps. that the new amps. of today evolved from.I agree with Eli in that they are faithful to their sponcers.I do give them credit for even reviewing a 50 yr.old amp.,but to those that don't know about caps.aging and leaking,the article could clearly be misleading.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: