|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.12.151.174
Howdy,This is my first post at the asylum. I've been an audiophile for quite a few years now, and have been into vintage stuff for almost as long. Recently I have been turned on to vintage tuners and receivers. I just love to watch those lamps light and dials turn!
In past searches, I have seen a lot of positive comments on a number of Japanese receivers from the 70s. I recently purchased a Kenwood Kr 5600 (love the tuner, and the pre-amp/amp make sweet, open tube-like music).
My wife is a long suffering audio widow who tolerates my continual cluttering of her house with my big sound making boxes, but I think she may have finally snapped. At the price that most of the 70s receivers and tuners go for on eBay, I think she thinks its only a matter of time before the house is filled to the rafters. I think that she will let me buy one more piece. So it comes down to this final choice.
I am currently auditioning a Marantz MR 235, but also have a lead on a Philips 796. I like the sound of the Marantz, and it seems to live happily with my Maggies (SMGAs), but am intrigued by all the great things that I have read here about Philips Lab Series receivers.
So ladies and gentlemen, if you could choose only one, which would it be?
Follow Ups:
I have a 796 and the sound is closer to what I'll term a very good high end system sound than most receivers I own. I've not heard the Marantz.The Marantz designs during their period of ownership by Philips has at best been less than well received and thought of by many. They knockk the Philips ownership. I have a mixed feeling as to the cause and effect relationship as Philips produced soe of the best sounding receivers IMHO; the Lab Series. However, that said I must admit the series was not the company's design product but that of a company they bought out, Magnavox.
The Philips do not go for much money as they are not high on the radar so my suggestion would be to buy and try and compare in your system against the Marantz and then decide and if need be sell the 1 that comes in 2nd.
It would not surprise me if in the end, you scratch your head finding that each has a different sound neither of which is objectionable and neither of which you can decide is misrepresenting the presentation; only delivering slightly different interpretations depending on the unit's voicing. I have this issue between my 796 and my Sony STR6060FW and could not decide to this day which I'd keep if I could only keep 1. When comparing either to my other receivers it is a far less issue and the Sony or Philips would be a clear winner.
Thanks Brian for your reponse. Reading yours and Radioactive's posts on Philips Lab Series receivers drew me to these pieces, but I recently happened upon a Marantz MR 235 that had been cleaned internally (lamps replaced, switches and pots cleaned) and had its output transistors replaced. I later read FR7GSWL's review of an MR 235 drawing its lineage directly to pre-Philips era units (it does look alot like both the 1530 and the 1535).I am drawn toward warm authoritative sound which strikes a good balance between recreation of ambiance and detail retrieval, and the MR 235, for the most part, delivers. My Maggies SMGAs are a fairly easy load (I've used them with everthing from an HT receiver to a 20WPC NAD), but are also quite revealing of the quality of amplification feeding them. While full and warm, the Marantz tends to sound a little forward and slightly opaque through the middle IMHO. On the positive side, the tuner produces the most balanced and authoritative sound of any receiver's tuner section that I have heard.
So I am indeed impressed by the Marantz, but would still give the nod to my Kenwood KR 5600 which manages to sound warm while being a bit quicker and more open overall. This said, my search for the ultimate receiver continues.
It is hard to describe the sound of the Philips as to do so requires a comparison to something more common or well known. For instance most know the signature sound of say Marantz, Pioneer, etc and realize each has a different sound; not right or wrong only different. This is a result of corporate voicing.The receiver also reflects the corporate sound, or at least the Laboratory Signature sound and is almost bang on with the separate tuner, preamp and power amp. Doesn't help, does it. I own the separates and in terms of sound they are quite different from my Mc system that I have had for decades and is my main system. The Philips with its sound I have decided to keep as it is very easy to listen to for long term without ear fatique, feeling a loss of the quality of the Mc signature sound or even miss the Mc sound.
The receiver imparts the same feeling and sound. It is not as what I term thick sounding as say a Marantz 22xx series, it is not as hard and harsh sounding as the Pioneer sound (no flames please, this is what I hear). It is between these and seems to have had an engineering goal of not trying to develop what we used to term a market driven sound.
I've heard similar signatures with units from ARC, Krell, and other more limited higher end companies. Remember, this was Magnavox trying to rebrand itself as a very real serious player in the market and it seemed to put the design money into the quality of the the sound.
They come closer to say a Yamaha sound but the Yammie is somewhat warmer or what I think of as sweeter sounding. They come a bit closer to the Tandbergs and maybe this is the lineup they come closet to.
Not sure this really helps and can only suggest for the going prices of these on the market, give it a try. A few have bought them and the result has been from an equal feeling for them to very close but something in their inventory they liked better; usually b/c of higher power ratings or hitting against 1 of those very rare and unique receivers such as the Sony STR 6060, 6120, or 6200. These are killers but unlike the Philips that seem bullet proof, the very early Sonys all need major tlc, especially the multiplex boards. I have the 6060 and waiting for a 6120 to get finished up and until I hit the 6060 the 797 was my top choice receiver. The 6060 displaces it not because it is clearly butter but it sounds closer to the Mc and I have a bias towards that sound and the 6060 when opened up shows a build quality that is as good as the best Fisher and Mc every made and that is HIGH praise. Owners of the 6120 say as good as the 6060 is the 6120 is even better, The 6200 replaced the 6120 and the difference seems to be the 6060 and 6120 had output caps while the 6200 did not. This design feature maybe part of the reason the 6060 sounds closer to the Mc as there is something between the output transistors (Mc has autoformers) and the speakers.
Bottom line is that IMHO, the Lab Series is a unigue and high quality and wonderful line of receivers and has an interesting place in audio history and represents except for Mc maybe the last demonstration of America's ability to design and manufacture a very high quality product. As for being 2nd to the above Sonys it must be remembered whan Sony designed and made these they were out to attain the status of being the McIntosh of Japan and for a few years proved they could do it.
Sorry for the long rant but, you can tell I am impassioned about the series.
Absolutely loved me MR-235, Ace of Pace, until gettin' seduced by a Sansui 9090! 235s just nail guitar tones, thanks to its' lateral mosfet topology! Just think Marantz 2226B, without that slick gyro tuner. You can't go wrong with either receiver, though. Here's a 235 review from a few years back.
FRG7SWL,I agree entirely with your assessment of the MR 235's natural presentation of guitar tone, but I would think its strengths better suit softly amplified electric guitar more than acoustic. The first time I heard this receiver, I was struck by its firm grip on the bass coming out of my Maggies. It has a subtle ability to produce controlled, tuneful lows which integrate well with the lower mids and can be a bit startling given the receiver's modest power output.
With acoustic guitar, where the presentation is lighter and balanced more toward the mids and highs, I have run into what seems to be the 235's main limitation. The foward, somewhat over-rich mids tend to blur transients in the lower treble, IMHO, leaving the upper treble to sound clear and admirably clean, but somewhat detached from the overall presentation.I still love the MR 235's overall sound. How does this receiver compare with other units from Marantz? How much of the Marantz sound does it deliver? What is the Marantz sound?
When this pup was modded, Ace of Pace, replaced those stock caps going into & out of the lateral mosfets' drivers with 3300uf non-polarized caps! Really opened that pup up. What a stunner to find out most modeling instrument amps utilize 3300uf caps also, to help deliver their wide variety of tones. Was amazed by all those sonic subtlties that 235 was then able to coax outta Celestion's Vintage 30s. No wonder Duane-n-Dickey sounded so dynamyte! Have had Marantz 2216B, 2220B, 2226B, 2238B, & SR2000 units throughout the years in da audio arsenal. All were warm-n-wonderful, with that 2226B the fave. Let a bud borrow it & he subsequently smoked it hookin' it up to 60s-era Altec A7s with shoddy wiring. That 2000 provided studio guitar amp duty for a decade or so, until it accompanied a pair of cleavage freckles up to Chico(ah mis-spent youth). How much of that Marantz sound do 235s deliver? Don't know! Do know these muthers are capable of delivering clean Winterlandish volume levels! Took a Sansui 9090 to cross over to that next level, what with its' ample power reserves!!!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: