In the Marantz line, I like the Model 18 and 19. |
Don't know if it is a "top" receiver, but I highly rate it.
Bought my Sansui 8080 in '73 I believe. Even today it is still delivering the goods. My daughter has it crankin in her college condo to this day along with my behemoth Cerwin Vegas. They love it.
-John |
I loved my Sansui 5000A. Loved it. Oh yeah. Listening to Tull and Yes in my parents' basement. Power to the people. |
One of the better-sounding of the day was the Harman Kardon HK930. |
the yamaha 2010 back when yamaha built first class stuff. |
Wish I could remember the models?...I had a couple of them.
LUXMAN....very nice sound.
Dave |
|
Advent 300. Like all Henry Kloss inspired designs, you get only what you really need. In this case, a Tom Holman designed phono section. Also, classic Kloss styling; no blue lights, meters, filters. |
I also liked the Luxman models, I think the R-117 was the last one I owned. I also liked the NAD 7600.
John |
Nytech 252 an old (circa 1980) British made tuner/amp that could be used as a pre-amp. Looked like a very large calculator. Nice sound though. |
tandberg/marantz/sansui/mac/kyrocera |
|
Marantz 2270, I wholeheartedly agree!
Tandberg TR2075 and 2080 are up there as well. |
Marantz 2285B
Yamaha CR-3020
Pioneer SX-1250
Concept 16.5 |
Hands down the Luxman 1120A. Sorry, but I've either owned or listened to much of what is talked about in the previous posts and for musicality, power, tuner section, phono section, it's Luxman. Still easily valid today against most equipment. |
|
Good grief, no mention of Yamaha?
They were inexpensive, ultra reliable and had vanishing low distortion specs combined with great sound and forward looking cosmetics.
I personally sold thousands of dollars worth of them with a very clear conscience. Their small model had 5 year unlimited warranty, a great tuner, variable loudness compensation, a fine phono stage and real wood cabinet for $199.00. |
Albert, you missed Starcon and me.
I agree - they were great value. I was working for a Yamaha dealer during those days as well, at night and weekends during high school and college and it was a regular sale.
Further to a clear conscience, my only difficulty was a customer who decided after several demos and lots of praise for the Yamaha receivers that yes, he would go with my suggestion and in fact would stretch for the top of the line, monster Yamaha receiver 2020 (?) 2040 (?) a model which we had never sold.
This was all very happy and exciting until the last minute - on the morning we had agreed for him to pick up the system, he decided he just had to have a pair of Dahlquist DQ10's - our "reference" demo speakers - instead of Polks or something.
Nearly 30 years later, I can still recall feeling a little funny connecting DQ10's to a receiver in his apartment, but I thought it would have been worse to suggest that our flagship powerhouse receiver might not power them adequately.
So I hope those old Yamahas were in fact so good that he got many years of enjoyment out of the Dahlquists! |
What about the Concept 16.5?
Pacific Stereo in Southern California
carried the Concept Line.
My Brother has one, and He said it was
more powerful than many of the Big Marantz
and Pioneer Receivers.
http://sportsbil.com/stereo/concept16_5/
One of Parasounds head guys came from Concept.
Not John Curl but Dick Schram did the circuitry
on the 16.5.
http://www.electricalhobby.com/monsterreceiversite/unit_pages/ConceptReceiver.htm
Dual transformers was a rare thing for Receivers back
then.
The Technics was more wattage and 20 pounds heavier.
Given the same sensitive speaker, using less than 50 watts
maximum, I just wonder which Receiver would sound Superior?
http://www.thevintageknob.org/TECHNICS/SA1000/SA1000.html#
Love to hear these 2 today with a nice CD player, and some
high quality speakers. |
Concept 16.5 - not drinking the Kool Aid.
Not to doubt your observations, but looks like a rebadged, private label type product.
I stand by the Yamahas. |
Cwlondon:"but looks like a rebadged, private label type product"?
Hmmm...so aside from an obvious "bias" for Yamaha,
What difference is it, what it "Looks" like?
Especially if the product outperforms its peers.
The 16.5 is a step above the rest.
The amplifier section plays more like a separate amp.
than a Receiver. Oh, and the Tuner section, it is superior
to many separate Tuners!
I can say this confidently as my Brother has both a 2020
Yamaha and the 16.5, as well as Pioneer, Marantz, and other Super-Receivers,
none can hold a candle to the "black sheep 16.5" Receiver,
it just is better at everything.
Besides, the Best components of the above Companies, All were made in Japan, we never
saw some of Japans finest,never will.
IMHO after listening to a heap of Receivers, the 16.5 was like a step above at least, in all areas. Too bad Yamaha did not make it. The answers here would be the 16.5 Yamaha hands down.
This is America, where "imitation is the highest form of flattery". In everything!
Anytime someone takes any product, and improves it, do You
stick with the original? Or go for the much improved version?
Of course in Audio, we go for the Latest version MKIII over
MKI, its a fact.
Like Sony and their venerable SCD-1,funny how Reiymo and
other independent companies have "SCD-1 Clones" Same thing!
In audio, notice Denon and Sony players look identical, and
the list of companies with "similar looking" products is too
long to list.Infinity and Genesis etc.
Careful when we judge the outside of something we don't like;
it reminds me of how some people look at "other" people,
and "label" them. Music is "Pure", let us strive to
allow Music to bring Us together not "further" separate Us.
Music, one of life's true pleasures.
By Yourself, or with friends, Music is uplifting!
Love Your Music!
Enjoy the tools. |
To me, there is a certain integrity that comes with designing and branding something from the ground up.
Like modified or garage manufactured cars, I am not so moved by the fact that some quirky English car, which starts with a Lotus chassis or whatever, in the end actually outhandles and outaccelerates a Ferrari for 1/4th the price.
I'll take the Ferrari. And a Yamaha receiver.
If you would like to just debate performance, rather than the complete package including functionality and design, we should also discuss the Tandberg receiver and the McIntosh receiver of that era. |
Bang & Olufsen Beomaster 2400. The fact that we're talking about receivers means to me that we're talking for more casual use, not for a reference system . . . and the 2400 sounds pretty decent, has an amazing list of technical innovations, and has a balance of aesthetics and ergonomics that makes them an absolute pleasure to use.
Consider the electronic photo-resistor volume control, which is all the rage in several high-end preamps these days. Low output power but with lots of current, and DC offset protection without using a speaker relay. A good-sounding, sensitive (when aligned properly) analog FM tuner with presets. Solid-state source switching using only diodes. Not to mention the capacitive touch-sensitive controls, and possibly the first remote control available on a music system . . . all done without a microprocessor. This was designed in the mid-1970s, when the rest of the world was producing ever larger conglomerations of chrome, light shows, fake vinyl wood, and a seemingly endless number of buttons, toggles, and rotary wafer switches.
And considering how cutting-edge much of the circuitry was, Beomaster 2400s as a group still aged pretty well . . . many are still working great today with only a couple trips to the repair shop over a 30 year lifespan. |
Luxman: R117, R115
Marantz: 2270
Tandberg: 2075, 2080
Nakamichi: SR3a |
Yamaha CR-1000 (note sure about the CR designation, but mid to late 70's)
This was my first receiver after building tube kit separates for years. I love it because it had everything; class A section plus a great tuner section.
Luxman
Marantz 19
Tanberg |
Harman Kardon 960
Pioneer 727
Advent 300
McIntosh 1900
Harmon Kardon 930 |
There were a bunch of good receivers in the 70's and 80's. Let see there was Rice, Branch, Irvin, Swan, Stallworth, Belitnikoff, Clayton, Monk, Largent, Joyner - just to name a few. |
