[gil]

Just got one of these at a garage sale and from what I read it has 26
WPC.

How is it that this unit can rock and pump my power hungry ADS L300
the way it does? I know this is no high end unit but many amps and
receivers have come through here with two to three times the power and
none have sounded as powerful.

Any thoughts?

Gil

[MiNe 109]

In article .com,
gil wrote:

Just got one of these at a garage sale and from what I read it has 26
WPC.

How is it that this unit can rock and pump my power hungry ADS L300
the way it does? I know this is no high end unit but many amps and
receivers have come through here with two to three times the power and
none have sounded as powerful.

Any thoughts?

Maybe the amp section distorts in a tube-like fashion with compression.

I like how old Marantz receivers look, so I hope you enjoy yours.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"gil" wrote in message
oups.com
Just got one of these at a garage sale and from what I
read it has 26 WPC.

How is it that this unit can rock and pump my power
hungry ADS L300 the way it does?

Small, live room?

I know this is no high
end unit but many amps and receivers have come through
here with two to three times the power and none have
sounded as powerful.

Amplifiers sometimes sound louder when they are distortion the sound.
Distorted sound can subjectively sound louder than an undistorted sound of
equal sound pressure level.

[George M. Middius]

It's Krooglish time!

they are distortion the sound

How's the religion thing lately, Arnii? I heard God is mad at you for
not doing your duty by interfering with abortion mills. If I were in
your place, I'd do a little less Krooglishing in public and a little
more campaigning to save the unborn. You don't want to be on God's
****-list, do you?



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[gil]

On Jul 30, 10:52 pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article .com,

gil wrote:
Just got one of these at a garage sale and from what I read it has 26
WPC.

How is it that this unit can rock and pump my power hungry ADS L300
the way it does? I know this is no high end unit but many amps and
receivers have come through here with two to three times the power and
none have sounded as powerful.

Any thoughts?

Maybe the amp section distorts in a tube-like fashion with compression.

I like how old Marantz receivers look, so I hope you enjoy yours.

Stephen

Stephen, even though I dont know a heck of a lot about HI-FI, the
"compression" thought makes some sense...I tried a separate pre-amp
connected to the amp section of the 2226b and the sound was weaker,
could the compression be in the pre-amp section of the receiver?
The only thing I have to compare it against is my NAD 7100, while the
NAD is definitely a better receiver and has a softer more detailed
sound, the Marantz really pumps the base and mids like NAD can't with
my speakers.
Im blown away by the "big" sound of the 2226b, it brings me back to
the sound of the 70's and yes it has a nice look to it.

[MiNe 109]

In article . com,
gil wrote:

On Jul 30, 10:52 pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article .com,

gil wrote:
Just got one of these at a garage sale and from what I read it has 26
WPC.

How is it that this unit can rock and pump my power hungry ADS L300
the way it does? I know this is no high end unit but many amps and
receivers have come through here with two to three times the power and
none have sounded as powerful.

Any thoughts?

Maybe the amp section distorts in a tube-like fashion with compression.

I like how old Marantz receivers look, so I hope you enjoy yours.

Stephen

Stephen, even though I dont know a heck of a lot about HI-FI, the
"compression" thought makes some sense...I tried a separate pre-amp
connected to the amp section of the 2226b and the sound was weaker,
could the compression be in the pre-amp section of the receiver?

I was thinking of the output stages of the amp. Some types of
transistors or ICs have more benign distortion than others.

The other preamp probably just has lower output than the Marantz preamp.

The only thing I have to compare it against is my NAD 7100, while the
NAD is definitely a better receiver and has a softer more detailed
sound, the Marantz really pumps the base and mids like NAD can't with
my speakers.

For an experiment, try it again but make sure the "soft clipping" is
turned off.

Im blown away by the "big" sound of the 2226b, it brings me back to
the sound of the 70's and yes it has a nice look to it.

Seventies super receivers have quite a following. Sorta like muscle cars
for the living room.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message


Seventies super receivers have quite a following. Sorta
like muscle cars for the living room.


A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would put most of them to
shame.

[George M. Middius]

Fecesborg rolls around on the dusty, moldy carpet of his "office".

Seventies super receivers have quite a following. Sorta
like muscle cars for the living room.

A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would put most of them to
shame.

Speaking of shame, have you applied for re-admission to Goose Puke
Baptist Church? Being known as a potential pedophile is quite your
little cross to bear.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message


Seventies super receivers have quite a following. Sorta
like muscle cars for the living room.


A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would put most of them to
shame.

So would a Toyota Corolla.

Stephen

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

gil wrote:
Just got one of these at a garage sale and from what I read it has 26
WPC.

**The actual power ouptut was more like 30 Watts @ 8 Ohms. Additionally,
the Marantz could deliver somewhat more power @ 4 Ohm loads. At 1% THD,
the 2226b was rated for 53 Watts/ch @ 4 Ohms.


How is it that this unit can rock and pump my power hungry ADS L300
the way it does?

**Maybe your speakers aren't as power hungry as you think they are.

I know this is no high end unit but many amps and
receivers have come through here with two to three times the power and
none have sounded as powerful.

Any thoughts?

**Yep. You've compared it to some pretty crappy amps. I suggest you
comparre it to a modern Rotel or NAD sometime. For 1978, the 2226b was
OK. It 2007, it is barely adequate.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[[email protected]]

On Jul 31, 4:53?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"MiNe 109" wrote in message





Seventies super receivers have quite a following. Sorta
like muscle cars for the living room.

A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would put most of them to
shame.

Yeah, until you listen to them.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com
On Jul 31, 4:53?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"MiNe 109" wrote in message





Seventies super receivers have quite a following. Sorta
like muscle cars for the living room.

A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would
put most of them to shame.

Yeah, until you listen to them.

Boon, I'm surprised that you're willing to admit that you've ever lowered
yourself to listening to any stereo receiver under $1 large.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message


Seventies super receivers have quite a following. Sorta
like muscle cars for the living room.


A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would
put most of them to shame.

So would a Toyota Corolla.

With the base or premium sound system? ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com
On Jul 31, 4:53 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"MiNe 109" wrote in message



Seventies super receivers have quite a following. Sorta
like muscle cars for the living room.

A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would
put most of them to shame.

Arny...are you claiming a modern Stereo receiver can be
differentiated from
a good condition 70's vintage receiver in DBT?

Not unless the old receiver was in good condition, but badly designed from
the onset.

I'm referring to issues like the fact that modern low cost receivers often
put out appreciably more power than the oldies from the 70s.

[George M. Middius]

Terrierdork tries to match mental masturbation skills with the Krooborg.

Arny...are you claiming a modern Stereo receiver can be
differentiated from
a good condition 70's vintage receiver in DBT?

Not unless the old receiver was in good condition, but badly designed from
the onset.

I'm referring to issues like the fact that modern low cost receivers often
put out appreciably more power than the oldies from the 70s.

Do you really think max power output really matters in a DBT level
matched
test for two ss amps operating without clipping?

In the Middle Ages, religious zealots tested witches by dunking them and
burning them. In the pre-Enlightenment days of our civilization,
monsters were invented to keep children from wandering into the woods.
In the mid-20th century, McCarthy hunted commies with a threatening
piece of paper. Now, in the 21st century, we have Usenet idiots whacking
off in a shared fantasy about imaginary "science" rituals that are
supposed to magically ward off the E.H.E.E.'s enchantments.

On behalf of the human race, I request that neither of you ever mention
"DBT" again until you've actually participated in a real one. Get
yourselves to the cathedral at Harman or some other place you can never
join and take part in a single real DBT. Until then, stop jizzing on
Usenet. OK?

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com
On Aug 1, 10:51 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message

oups.com

On Jul 31, 4:53 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"MiNe 109" wrote in
message


Seventies super receivers have quite a following.
Sorta like muscle cars for the living room.
A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would
put most of them to shame.
Arny...are you claiming a modern Stereo receiver can be
differentiated from
a good condition 70's vintage receiver in DBT?

Not unless the old receiver was in good condition, but
badly designed from the onset.

I'm referring to issues like the fact that modern low
cost receivers often put out appreciably more power than
the oldies from the 70s.

IOW, issues that don't show up in a properly-done DBT

Do you really think max power output really matters in a
DBT level matched
test for two ss amps operating without clipping?

I guess you didn't notice that I've already excluded DBT issues from my
comments.

My 35 watt Sansui sounds no different to me than my 150
watt Yamaha FWIW.

As long as you don't clip the smaller receiver and its otherwise a good
unit, you should be good to go.

I think you may recollect an anecdote where an audiophile's son swapped in a
Pioneer receiver in place of his dad's heavy metal? That receiver was only
about 40 WPC as I recall.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message
gil wrote:
Just got one of these at a garage sale and from what I
read it has 26 WPC.

**The actual power ouptut was more like 30 Watts @ 8
Ohms. Additionally, the Marantz could deliver somewhat
more power @ 4 Ohm loads. At 1% THD, the 2226b was rated
for 53 Watts/ch @ 4 Ohms.

How is it that this unit can rock and pump my power
hungry ADS L300 the way it does?

**Maybe your speakers aren't as power hungry as you think
they are.
I know this is no high end unit but many amps and
receivers have come through here with two to three times
the power and none have sounded as powerful.

Any thoughts?

**Yep. You've compared it to some pretty crappy amps. I
suggest you comparre it to a modern Rotel or NAD
sometime. For 1978, the 2226b was OK. It 2007, it is
barely adequate.

At the time, I think the 2226 was the Marantz entry level receiver. I think
they later went even lower. 2215???

Trevor Wilson

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message
gil wrote:
Just got one of these at a garage sale and from what I
read it has 26 WPC.
**The actual power ouptut was more like 30 Watts @ 8
Ohms. Additionally, the Marantz could deliver somewhat
more power @ 4 Ohm loads. At 1% THD, the 2226b was rated
for 53 Watts/ch @ 4 Ohms.
How is it that this unit can rock and pump my power
hungry ADS L300 the way it does?
**Maybe your speakers aren't as power hungry as you think
they are.
I know this is no high end unit but many amps and
receivers have come through here with two to three times
the power and none have sounded as powerful.

Any thoughts?
**Yep. You've compared it to some pretty crappy amps. I
suggest you comparre it to a modern Rotel or NAD
sometime. For 1978, the 2226b was OK. It 2007, it is
barely adequate.

At the time, I think the 2226 was the Marantz entry level receiver. I think
they later went even lower. 2215???

**Close, but no cigar. The entry level receiver was the 2216b. The
lineage of Marantz receivers went roughly as follows:

2215 (Blue/blackout dial)
2220 "
2225 "
2240 "
Etc


2216 (Blue/blackout dial, with gold trim below dial)
2218 "
2226 "
2238 "
Etc

2216b (Gold dial/blue backlit)
2218b "
2226b "
2238b "
Etc

As a general rule, the move from the eariest listed models (which are
not the earliest Japanese Marantz recivers) to the later models involved
a substantial technology leap. However, the move to the even newer
models involved no substantial technological improvements, but did
involve (IMO) a significant drop back in construction quality. Extruded
heatsinks were replaced by folded aluminium. These changes were to
reduce costs, rather than provide better value for consumers. SOP.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[gil]

On Jul 31, 10:06 pm, Trevor Wilson
wrote:
gil wrote:
Just got one of these at a garage sale and from what I read it has 26
WPC.

**The actual power ouptut was more like 30 Watts @ 8 Ohms. Additionally,
the Marantz could deliver somewhat more power @ 4 Ohm loads. At 1% THD,
the 2226b was rated for 53 Watts/ch @ 4 Ohms.



How is it that this unit can rock and pump my power hungry ADS L300
the way it does?

**Maybe your speakers aren't as power hungry as you think they are.

I know this is no high end unit but many amps and

receivers have come through here with two to three times the power and
none have sounded as powerful.

Any thoughts?

**Yep. You've compared it to some pretty crappy amps. I suggest you
comparre it to a modern Rotel or NAD sometime. For 1978, the 2226b was
OK. It 2007, it is barely adequate.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

Trevor, I do have NAD stuff here and in no way I am comparing the
2226b to any of them, my amazement with the 2226b is the way it makes
my ADS L300 speakers "punchier" than I have heard them before, even
with the NAD receivers and others I have here, I just think it says a
lot for a low power receiver that came out in the 70's.

Gil

[[email protected]]

On Aug 1, 4:54?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com

On Jul 31, 4:53?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"MiNe 109" wrote in message



Seventies super receivers have quite a following. Sorta
like muscle cars for the living room.

A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would
put most of them to shame.
Yeah, until you listen to them.

Boon, I'm surprised that you're willing to admit that you've ever lowered
yourself to listening to any stereo receiver under $1 large.

I own a Marantz 2238B and a Luxman R-1040. Have for years. Mention
it all the time. Write articles about them. List them in my
equipment profiles.

Boon

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" said:


Seventies super receivers have quite a following. Sorta
like muscle cars for the living room.


A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would put most of them to
shame.


Prove it by showing us the results of the DBT that led to this claim.

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said to LiarBorg:

A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would put most of them to
shame.

Prove it by showing us the results of the DBT that led to this claim.

Sannder you're are being, deliberittley obtuce again, Snader. Given™
Sandeer that nobody has ever relaibley indentified competently-built
amplifier's, apart in a level Matched Test Sender. We now know now that,
all competently-designed amp's all sound-alike.

Come back when, you have a clue Sandrar. LOl! ROTITMFFL!




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" said:


Seventies super receivers have quite a following. Sorta
like muscle cars for the living room.


A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would put most of them
to
shame.

Prove it by showing us the results of the DBT that led to this claim.

Did I say that the opinion above was the result of a listening test? ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

On 5 Aug, 16:28, Sander deWaal wrote:
"Arny Krueger" said:

Seventies super receivers have quite a following. Sorta
like muscle cars for the living room.
A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would put most of them to
shame.

Prove it by showing us the results of the DBT that led to this claim.


I don't need to prove what an idiot like you can't hear.
If you need proof for yourself of what an idiot like you can't hear,
prove it for yourself. In fact, there is a whole lot more
you might wish to prove, regarding your sordid background here.
Like, maybe you can prove someone sent you kiddie porn in th email,
as you have previously claimed here so many times.

[Clyde Slick]

On 5 Aug, 22:11, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 5 Aug, 16:28, Sander deWaal wrote:

"Arny Krueger" said:

Seventies super receivers have quite a following. Sorta
like muscle cars for the living room.
A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would put most of them to
shame.

Prove it by showing us the results of the DBT that led to this claim.

I don't need to prove what an idiot like you can't hear.
If you need proof for yourself of what an idiot like you can't hear,
prove it for yourself. In fact, there is a whole lot more
you might wish to prove, regarding your sordid background here.
Like, maybe you can prove someone sent you kiddie porn in th email,
as you have previously claimed here so many times.


oops, i thought it was another ridiculois arny post, rather than
Sander's mockery of arny.

[Clyde Slick]

On 5 Aug, 22:36, "ScottW" wrote:


Your fine is one Beethoven box set.
BTW, you left your album here so you have to
come back to Ca. to get it .


Leibowitz, Reader's Digest.

"At least" I brought the 1,2,6,8,and 9
Chesky cd resisues of them with me.
Now I just need something here to play them on.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" said:


Seventies super receivers have quite a following. Sorta
like muscle cars for the living room.


A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would put most of them
to shame.


Prove it by showing us the results of the DBT that led to this claim.


Did I say that the opinion above was the result of a listening test? ;-)


Thanks Arns for admitting you're just another one of those blowhards
who refuse to substantiate their claims with scientifical evidence.

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -

[Sander deWaal]

Clyde Slick said:

On 5 Aug, 22:11, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 5 Aug, 16:28, Sander deWaal wrote:
"Arny Krueger" said:


A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would put most of them to
shame.


Prove it by showing us the results of the DBT that led to this claim.


I don't need to prove what an idiot like you can't hear.
If you need proof for yourself of what an idiot like you can't hear,
prove it for yourself. In fact, there is a whole lot more
you might wish to prove, regarding your sordid background here.
Like, maybe you can prove someone sent you kiddie porn in th email,
as you have previously claimed here so many times.


oops, i thought it was another ridiculois arny post, rather than
Sander's mockery of arny.


ROFL!

Its like, Slick you're mouse has more intellignece Art than, you if
ever you we're barking up, the wrong tree Clyde. LoT;"s! ;-)

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" said:


Seventies super receivers have quite a following. Sorta
like muscle cars for the living room.


A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would put most of them
to shame.


Prove it by showing us the results of the DBT that led to this claim.


Did I say that the opinion above was the result of a listening test? ;-)


Thanks Arns for admitting you're just another one of those blowhards
who refuse to substantiate their claims with scientifical evidence.

Thanks Sander for admitting that you are completely unfamiliar with the use
of test equipment to evaluate audio gear. ;-)

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" said:


A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would put most of them
to shame.


Prove it by showing us the results of the DBT that led to this claim.


Did I say that the opinion above was the result of a listening test? ;-)


Thanks Arns for admitting you're just another one of those blowhards
who refuse to substantiate their claims with scientifical evidence.


Thanks Sander for admitting that you are completely unfamiliar with the use
of test equipment to evaluate audio gear. ;-)


Please show me the URL with the results of your measurements.

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" said:


A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would put most of
them
to shame.


Prove it by showing us the results of the DBT that led to this claim.


Did I say that the opinion above was the result of a listening test?
;-)


Thanks Arns for admitting you're just another one of those blowhards
who refuse to substantiate their claims with scientifical evidence.


Thanks Sander for admitting that you are completely unfamiliar with the
use
of test equipment to evaluate audio gear. ;-)


Please show me the URL with the results of your measurements.


You can find my measurements at www.pcavtech.com . Don't think I posted any
results of my tests of stereo receivers.

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Aug, 23:39, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


You can find my measurements atwww.pcavtech.com. .- Ascunde citatul -

- Afiºare text în citat -

IQ = 103

probably would measure considerably higher, if you weren't insane.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" said:


"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
.. .
"Arny Krueger" said:


A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80 would put most of
them
to shame.


Prove it by showing us the results of the DBT that led to this claim.


Did I say that the opinion above was the result of a listening test?
;-)


Thanks Arns for admitting you're just another one of those blowhards
who refuse to substantiate their claims with scientifical evidence.


Thanks Sander for admitting that you are completely unfamiliar with the
use
of test equipment to evaluate audio gear. ;-)


Please show me the URL with the results of your measurements.


You can find my measurements at www.pcavtech.com . Don't think I posted any
results of my tests of stereo receivers.


Thanks for admitting you can't substantiate your claim.

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:


"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" said:


A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80
would put most of them
to shame.


Prove it by showing us the results of the DBT that
led to this claim.


Did I say that the opinion above was the result of a
listening test? ;-)


Thanks Arns for admitting you're just another one of
those blowhards who refuse to substantiate their
claims with scientifical evidence.


Thanks Sander for admitting that you are completely
unfamiliar with the use
of test equipment to evaluate audio gear. ;-)


Please show me the URL with the results of your
measurements.

You can find my measurements at www.pcavtech.com .
Don't think I posted any results of my tests of stereo
receivers.

Thanks for admitting you can't substantiate your claim.

Thanks Sander for showing your shallow thinking by effectively saying that
posting results on the web somehow validates them. Here's a helpful hint:
Posting results on the web in no way validates them.

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Aug, 00:30, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message







"Arny Krueger" said:

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
. ..
"Arny Krueger" said:

A modern stereo receiver costing as little as $80
would put most of them
to shame.

Prove it by showing us the results of the DBT that
led to this claim.

Did I say that the opinion above was the result of a
listening test? ;-)

Thanks Arns for admitting you're just another one of
those blowhards who refuse to substantiate their
claims with scientifical evidence.

Thanks Sander for admitting that you are completely
unfamiliar with the use
of test equipment to evaluate audio gear. ;-)

Please show me the URL with the results of your
measurements.
You can find my measurements atwww.pcavtech.com.
Don't think I posted any results of my tests of stereo
receivers.
Thanks for admitting you can't substantiate your claim.

Thanks Sander for showing your shallow thinking by effectively saying that
posting results on the web somehow validates them. Here's a helpful hint:
Posting results on the web in no way validates them.- Ascunde citatul -

- Afiºare text în citat -

heavens!! what did sander do?
post a link to pcabx.crummy?