[One4All]

I've just been given a Denon AVR-1200 receiver & am thinking of using
it to replace a Marantz 1060 amplifier and a Yamaha CT-1010 turner.
These are old components, but the Marantz & Yamaha still work. The
Marantz is 34 yrs. old & the Yamaha at least 20 yrs. old (I think.).

I know nothing of the Denon, other than it's a quality brand, & wonder
if anyone can advise whether replacing the Marantz & Yamaha with the
Denon would be a good idea, other than saving some shelf space. I don't
know the age of the Denon or how much it's been used.

Thanks.

[Sander deWaal]

"One4All" said:

I've just been given a Denon AVR-1200 receiver & am thinking of using
it to replace a Marantz 1060 amplifier and a Yamaha CT-1010 turner.
These are old components, but the Marantz & Yamaha still work. The
Marantz is 34 yrs. old & the Yamaha at least 20 yrs. old (I think.).

I know nothing of the Denon, other than it's a quality brand, & wonder
if anyone can advise whether replacing the Marantz & Yamaha with the
Denon would be a good idea, other than saving some shelf space. I don't
know the age of the Denon or how much it's been used.


Marantz amps from that era were robust ands reliable components, but
some parts inside may show their age, e.g. electrolytics.

Yamaha tuners from the '70s belonged to the top at that time, I'd
definitely keep it if FM radio is important to you.

I don't know anything about the Denon receiver you mention, but in
general it can be said that denon is decent stuff.

Just connect it and listen!

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[One4All]

I did a search in alt.home-theater.misc each of these components.
Needless to say, posts were nearly10 yrs ago, but relevant, due to the
age of the components. Robert Morein said the same thing you do, that
the electrolytics in the capacitors show age by a hum when nothing is
playing on the system. I've been puzzled by hearing such a hum & have
decided the Marantz, at 34 yrs of age, is kaput. I'm sure replacement
capacitors would be hard to come by.

So, I'm keeping the Yamaha, which means the Denon goes, too. To replace
the Marantz, I'm deciding between an Onkyo A-9555 and a Marantz PM-7200
amplifier. Any recommendations on any other good $600 2-channel
integrated amplifiers?

Sander DeWaal wrote:

Marantz amps from that era were robust and reliable components, but
some parts inside may show their age, e.g. electrolytics.

Yamaha tuners from the '70s belonged to the top at that time, I'd
definitely keep it if FM radio is important to you.

[MINe 109]

In article .com,
"One4All" wrote:

I did a search in alt.home-theater.misc each of these components.
Needless to say, posts were nearly10 yrs ago, but relevant, due to the
age of the components. Robert Morein said the same thing you do, that
the electrolytics in the capacitors show age by a hum when nothing is
playing on the system. I've been puzzled by hearing such a hum & have
decided the Marantz, at 34 yrs of age, is kaput. I'm sure replacement
capacitors would be hard to come by.

So, I'm keeping the Yamaha, which means the Denon goes, too. To replace
the Marantz, I'm deciding between an Onkyo A-9555 and a Marantz PM-7200
amplifier. Any recommendations on any other good $600 2-channel
integrated amplifiers?

NAD BEE series, although I'm curious to hear about that Marantz.

Stephen

[One4All]

Which Marantz: the 1060 or the pm-7200?

MINe 109 wrote:
So, I'm keeping the Yamaha, which means the Denon goes, too. To replace
the Marantz, I'm deciding between an Onkyo A-9555 and a Marantz PM-7200
amplifier. Any recommendations on any other good $600 2-channel
integrated amplifiers?

NAD BEE series, although I'm curious to hear about that Marantz.

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article .com,
"One4All" wrote:



MINe 109 wrote:
So, I'm keeping the Yamaha, which means the Denon goes, too. To replace
the Marantz, I'm deciding between an Onkyo A-9555 and a Marantz PM-7200
amplifier. Any recommendations on any other good $600 2-channel
integrated amplifiers?

NAD BEE series, although I'm curious to hear about that Marantz.

Which Marantz: the 1060 or the pm-7200?

The newer one, because it has the high end marketing virtues of being
heavy and running Class A higher than usual.

Stephen

[paul packer]

On 6 Aug 2006 20:18:47 -0700, "One4All" wrote:


So, I'm keeping the Yamaha, which means the Denon goes, too. To replace
the Marantz, I'm deciding between an Onkyo A-9555 and a Marantz PM-7200
amplifier. Any recommendations on any other good $600 2-channel
integrated amplifiers?

Hasn't the Marantz been superceded?. I think it's the PM7001 now.

Here's a blurb:

The Marantz PM7001 stereo integrated amplifier is the perfect solution
for the audiophile seeking uncompromising musicality with flexible
operation. Delivering 2 x 70 watts into 8 ohms, this superb Current
Feedback amplifier features symmetrical circuits for perfect image
balancing, and uses Customized Components and Current Feedback HDAMs
to preserve the music’s dynamic structure, tonal quality and stereo
image. The 2-stage construction concept, the short, symmetrical signal
paths and the stable power supply further underline the superb build
quality of the PM7001. The phono MM input completes the list and makes
the PM7001 the perfect centre piece of your stereo system.

[Sander deWaal]

"One4All" said:

I did a search in alt.home-theater.misc each of these components.
Needless to say, posts were nearly10 yrs ago, but relevant, due to the
age of the components. Robert Morein said the same thing you do, that
the electrolytics in the capacitors show age by a hum when nothing is
playing on the system. I've been puzzled by hearing such a hum & have
decided the Marantz, at 34 yrs of age, is kaput. I'm sure replacement
capacitors would be hard to come by.


Hum may come from many sources, but it is entirely possible that the
power supply electrolytics are shot after so may years.

Being an old tinkerer, I'd do the following:
Replacements are very easy to find, at least when the capacitance
value and voltage is concerned.
The physical size, however, will be very different.
in 30+ years, electrolytics have been shrinked to approx. 1/5 th of
their size.

I'd guess there is something like 2 x 10.000 uF/63 in there for both
channels, maybe even less.
They're available from outfits like mouser or digikey for about $12 a
piece.
If you're looking around real hard, you may find them even cheaper.

The hard part would be to mount them on the existing chassis, most
likely the old ones are bolted with a clamp directly to the chassis.
Remove them, buy a piece of experimenter's PCB, place it over the
holes and solder the new electrolytics on the PCB.
You may need to drill the holes a little bigger for them to fit.
Drill 3mm holes on the PCB at the place where the old clamps were
fitted.

Solder the positive, negative and ground leads to the new caps and
you're done.

Half an hour of work, maybe $30 worth of parts and you're set for
another 20 years ;-).

That said, many other electrolytics in the amplifier are of teh same
age , so they'd need replacement as well.
Their value and size is considerable smaller, as is their cost.
For another $20 of caps and another hour of soldering fun, your amp is
up to snuff again.


If you're not into DIY-ing, buy something new.
I can't help you with that, I'm not familiar with the current status
of new stuff.

Put the old one on E-bay, there are many vintage audio hobbyists who'd
like to have your Marantz.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[One4All]

I've added the NAD C320 BEE to my list & found impressive reviews.
Apparently the PM7200 has been superceded by the PM7001. Rather than
searching for a particular model, it's probably better to go to the
makers' Websites to see their current models, specs., etc.

Question: Why is it possible for a less powerful amp. to have better
sound than a more powerful one? Reading a review of the PM7200, I ran
across the comment that it has a switch to reduce power to 25
watts/channel, and by reducing to 25 watts, the sound improved. I
always thought the more power, the better. I suppose it has a lot to do
with speaker sizes & resistance, altho most speakers rate at 8 ohms.

I'm pretty naive the technicals, & Sander, No, I can't upgrade the
1060 myself, altho I appreciate your taking the time to tell me how to
do it. Maybe you've helped someone else, anyway.

One4All wrote:

To replace the Marantz, I'm deciding between an Onkyo A-9555 and a Marantz PM-7200
amplifier.

[paul packer]

On 7 Aug 2006 10:41:45 -0700, "One4All" wrote:

Apparently the PM7200 has been superceded by the PM7001.

Hmmm...I didn't realize until now that nobody reads my posts.

Very disheartening.

[Sander deWaal]

"One4All" said:


Question: Why is it possible for a less powerful amp. to have better
sound than a more powerful one? Reading a review of the PM7200, I ran
across the comment that it has a switch to reduce power to 25
watts/channel, and by reducing to 25 watts, the sound improved. I
always thought the more power, the better. I suppose it has a lot to do
with speaker sizes & resistance, altho most speakers rate at 8 ohms.


This is IMHO not always the case.
If what they are doing is something like in the old PM80, there is a
"class A" switch, where the power supply voltages are lowered, and the
bias current through the output devices is increased.
This lowers the output power capability of the amplifier.

To be honest, I don't believe in the way it is done in the PM-80.
To take advantage of class A biasing (where the power stage gets very
hot), one has to design the stage taking into account the high bias
current and some other factors like loop feedback etc.

I don't know if this all sounds too technical for you, but IMHO, there
is little to no advantage in biasing an existing class (A)B design
into class A, without redesigning the rest of the power stage.
Again IMHO, class A operation is most useful when tubes (and
especially triodes) or vertical MOSFETs are used in the power stage.

I wouldn't worry about it too much, most recent amplifiers from renown
manufacturers are pretty good, and the Marantz 7000 gets good reviews
as far as I have seen.


Others may (and will!) disagree about my opinion re. class A, however.


I'm pretty naive the technicals, & Sander, No, I can't upgrade the
1060 myself, altho I appreciate your taking the time to tell me how to
do it. Maybe you've helped someone else, anyway.


Well, when you sell the old Marantz, you can now tell them how to
resurrect it (if they don't know already).

You'd be amazed at how many people are willing to buy your old amp for
a substantial amount of money! ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Sander deWaal]

(paul packer) said:


Hmmm...I didn't realize until now that nobody reads my posts.
Very disheartening.


Sorry, I thought you were a Middius sockpuppet.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[One4All]

Paul,

It was your post where I learned this. So, hope this makes you feel
better. : )

paul packer wrote:
On 7 Aug 2006 10:41:45 -0700, "One4All" wrote:

Apparently the PM7200 has been superceded by the PM7001.

Hmmm...I didn't realize until now that nobody reads my posts.

Very disheartening.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:48:07 +0200, Sander DeWaal
wrote:


This is IMHO not always the case.
If what they are doing is something like in the old PM80, there is a
"class A" switch, where the power supply voltages are lowered, and the
bias current through the output devices is increased.
This lowers the output power capability of the amplifier.

To be honest, I don't believe in the way it is done in the PM-80.
To take advantage of class A biasing (where the power stage gets very
hot), one has to design the stage taking into account the high bias
current and some other factors like loop feedback etc.

Well, I owned a PM80 and I couldn't tell the difference between Class
A and A/B except that in Class A the room got strangely hot (great in
winter). Much the same has been said of the PM7200 in forums. The fact
is, both amps are good enough in A/B not to need this kind of
gimmickry.

Interestingly I also owned a PM8200 which was rated 60 watts with no
class A and it got nearly as hot as a class A.

[paul packer]

On 8 Aug 2006 11:26:03 -0700, "One4All" wrote:

Paul,

It was your post where I learned this. So, hope this makes you feel
better. : )

My ego is sitting up in bed sipping soup. All will be well soon. :-)

[One4All]

Sander,

I don't question your knowledge or your goodwill, but an eBay search on
sold 1060's averages out to less than $100. Maybe closer to $50. Are
you saying these buyers are getting a bargain, that, like you, they
know the true worth of the 1060? FYI, based on what you've told me,
I'll not be in a hurry to sell my 1060, even if I buy a replacement,
which looks like will be a NAD C320 BEE.

I'm going to get the 1060 checked out at a local shop, & if it still
performs (that is, the hum is negligible), I'll save the $600 the NAD
would cost. I just need another pair of trained ears to listen to this
amplifier. There's nothing like owning a performing classic.

One other thing: There are audio components out there (esp. amplifiers)
running into the $K's. I even ran across a quote for a speaker system
at $85K. Is this just another example of conspicuous consumption? All
this "high-end" stuff? Are there that many human ears that are so
attenuated that a $10K or more amplifier will produce a more
satisfactory sound to those ears than, say, a NAD C320 BEE? It may be
that there are; there may be a price to pay for pristine sound. Yet,
how pristine is that sound at a live performance, which should be the
standard?

As you know, you don't need to get too technical, here, if you wish to
reply, at all.

David

Sander DeWaal wrote:
"One4All" said:

Well, when you sell the old Marantz, you can now tell them how to
resurrect it (if they don't know already).

You'd be amazed at how many people are willing to buy your old amp for
a substantial amount of money! ;-)

[Sander deWaal]

"One4All" said:

Sander,

I don't question your knowledge or your goodwill, but an eBay search on
sold 1060's averages out to less than $100. Maybe closer to $50. Are
you saying these buyers are getting a bargain, that, like you, they
know the true worth of the 1060? FYI, based on what you've told me,
I'll not be in a hurry to sell my 1060, even if I buy a replacement,
which looks like will be a NAD C320 BEE.


I must confess to not have looked at what exact model you had, before
just now.
It appears the 1060 doesn't command the prices I thought they would.
I must have had another model in my mind. I'm sorry.

Nevertheless, it is a good amp, from an era when quality was still
king.
If I were you, I'd look out for a knowledgeable hobbyist who likes to
bring your amp back to its original state.
The cost of having this done by a professional wouldn't relate to the
actual value of the amplifier.

Like I said, I'm an old tinkerer, and I would love to overhaul this
amp for you. But alas, I'm in the Netherlands............


I'm going to get the 1060 checked out at a local shop, & if it still
performs (that is, the hum is negligible), I'll save the $600 the NAD
would cost. I just need another pair of trained ears to listen to this
amplifier. There's nothing like owning a performing classic.


Exactly. :-)
There are days I'm happy to be able to know what to do with a
soldering iron !


One other thing: There are audio components out there (esp. amplifiers)
running into the $K's. I even ran across a quote for a speaker system
at $85K. Is this just another example of conspicuous consumption? All
this "high-end" stuff? Are there that many human ears that are so
attenuated that a $10K or more amplifier will produce a more
satisfactory sound to those ears than, say, a NAD C320 BEE? It may be
that there are; there may be a price to pay for pristine sound. Yet,
how pristine is that sound at a live performance, which should be the
standard?


In my opinion, high end audio is a bit like the formula 1 in car
racing.
Most of these highly expensive units are handmade, with very special
parts, often thought to be the best of their kind.
That alone makes them expensive, especially when only a few are built.

Then there are designers who just want to add their own signature to a
certain circuit (I'm one of them, BTW ;-) ).
This is often where "hifi" starts to get separated from "myfi".
Hifi is referred to as "to reproduce as accurate as possible what's on
the source disk".

To me, this doesn't necessarily mean it sounds the best to my ears.
No one will dispute that speakers (and room, and positioning) is/are
the most important component/factor.
However, it is possible to alter the circuit of an amplifier, or a
DAC, or a preamlifier, to sound just a little different.
Formally, at that moment, the designer is no longer designing hifi
equipment, but myfi equipment.
Myfi = this sounds good to me.

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with that.
It is no different than to fiddle with tone controls, equalizers of
even DSPs (Digital Signal Processors that emulate hall reverb etc.)

For $600, you will buy a very decent hifi component, that will preform
as good as modern technology will allow for.
In most rooms, the need for more than say 100 watts/channel is almost
never there (I know some people will jump on me for this!).

More money often buys you more power, but don't forget that SPL (sound
pressure level, the perceived loudness of the music) is a logarithmic
figure.
That means that 100 watts is 2 times the loudness of 10 watts, and
only 4 times the loudness of 1 watt.

Therefore, you'll notice that listening on average levels requires an
average power of 1 watt, in most cases even less.
The rest of the amp power is reserved for peaks in the music.

I could go on about things like crest factor etc., but I think you get
the idea.

There's also something like speaker efficiency, that is the rate
between electrical input power in watts and sound pressure level in
dBs.
Average speakers have a sensitivity in the range of 87...90 dB/w/m.
This means, for a loudness of 87...90 dB at a distance of 1 meter, 1
watt (or rather, 2.83 volts) is necessary.
I can tell you, 87 dB at 1 meter is loud, at least to these ears.

If you have speakers with say 97 dB/w/m, you will need 10 dB less of
amp power to reach the same loudness.

So, in my view, it is important to look at the system in its entirety.
If you have inefficient speakers, you'll need more power.
If you have a big room, you'll need more power.

Above I said more money buys you more power, in general.
In some cases, more money just buys you boutique parts, design cases,
blue LEDs and a lot of marketing.

To make an informed decision on what to buy is therefore not an easy
process, something the well-known magazines certaibly do not make
easier.


As you know, you don't need to get too technical, here, if you wish to
reply, at all.


I hope the above, which is just the tip of the iceberg, is of some
help with your decision.

If you want to hear more, just ask, and remember: the above is just
*my opinion*, it is no gospel, and I may well be wrong about certain
things.

I'm sure several other newsgroup contributors will fill in the gaps or
will correct me, even attack me for what I have been saying ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."