Vintage Hi-Fi gear. Who's into it?

[VR6Bomber]

Hell's yea.
I just started getting into Vintage stuff in the past year after years of digital equipment.

So far I am:
Marantz 6300 turntable (Fully restored by Claudio at www.vintageturntablerestoration.com)
McIntosh MX110 w/ Telefunkens Found on CL for $300!
McIntosh MC250 Restored by Terry Dewick
Klipsch KG4's, and some old Bozak 130's (I really want Heresys or cornwalls some day)

I also have a Marantz 2265b (<- monster power) in my living room with some design acoustics ps-10's and a Sony str-6065 that sounds sweet as any tube receiver.

yeay for vintage gear

There is a great website for DIY restoring Marantz gear. They even have an LED conversion kit to give your Marantz even more blue glow. http://www.irebuildmarantz.com/

[VR6Bomber]

Anyone every play around with Dynaco amps? Specically the ST-70?
I've been interested to hear EL34 tubes in something other than an guitar amp.
You can pickup one of these new reproduction kits for about 700 or for around 1000 assembled.
Dying to hear one....

[CaptainQualude]

I also have a Marantz 2265b (<- monster power) in my living room with some design acoustics ps-10's and a Sony str-6065 that sounds sweet as any tube receiver.

I have a couple of Vintage Marantz receivers. I also had the DA PS-10 speakers driven by a Sony receiver in the early 90's. It was an oddball speaker with the mid-range & tweeter on the front panel, & then the down firing woofer on the bottom, all housed in what looked like a cube. DA had another crazy looking speaker that looked like a huge soccer ball.

There is a great website for DIY restoring Marantz gear. They even have an LED conversion kit to give your Marantz even more blue glow. http://www.irebuildmarantz.com

I didn't know about that website. I occasionally stop by Audiokarma if I need some information about the old stuff. I have done the velum replacement behind the front glass to get rid of the yellow look. One receiver still needs the stereo bulb replaced.

http://audiokarma.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=134

[VR6Bomber]

^Yup thats the PS-10! Feturing the high freq. crossover in the back. Very cool.
I got my pair with a rotted woofer for 25$! The replacement woofer (only a pyle 1000w woofer was shallow enough to fit that box) was 80. Still not bad, they sound great and fit under my end tables!
The Misses would never allow for a full size 3 way with a 10" otherwise. It was a score in my book!

The 'I rebuild marantz' website has full bulb kits specific to your model. Saves a lot of time trying to find the sizes and voltages on each bulb. The kit I got even included shrink wrap and little strip of solder for the bulb on the tuner indicator that has the wire leads.
Be careful not to break the little brittle plastic bulb holders. I did, it is almost impossible to remove those bulbs that have been melted in there for 30 years.

I shied away from the LED conversion, I didn't want my receiver looking too modern, like it was about to take off into orbit.
Audiogon website is a great classified too.

Cool to see Vortex-ers with appreciation for 'real' quality audio!



I haven't touched my $400 Nano mp3 player in about 2 years now.
I almost wish mp3's where never invented as the mp3 will be all this generation knows, most likely.
And that is sad.

[CaptainQualude]

I haven't touched my $400 Nano mp3 player in about 2 years now.
I almost wish mp3's where never invented as the mp3 will be all this generation knows, most likely.
And that is sad.

Sometimes more modern isn't an improvement. In the case of 95% of CD players, they sound worse than vinyl. The MP3 players are even worse than that. It's been 28 years since compressed music on CD started the trend to become the norm. There are millions of people out there under the age of 30 who have never heard vinyl. It would be interesting to do a blind A/B session with a group of them to see if they could tell which one they were listening to.

[F1_Fan]

It's been 28 years since compressed music on CD started the trend to become the norm.

I'm not taking either side with respect to sound quality but... CDs are not compressed. They contain an uncompressed digital (but not precise) representation of the analog waveform.

Though with respect to "28 years", one could argue that compressed audio has its roots even earlier than that in analog tape. Dolby noise reduction (and the other similar systems back then) are compress/decompress systems.

[VR6Bomber]

I'm not taking either side with respect to sound quality but... CDs are not compressed. They contain an uncompressed digital (but not precise) representation of the analog waveform.

Though with respect to "28 years", one could argue that compressed audio has its roots even earlier than that in analog tape. Dolby noise reduction (and the other similar systems back then) are compress/decompress systems.

Compact Discs are not compressed.

I can see why someone may think a CD is compressed due to the fact that CD's do not contain a 'full recording'. CD's are digital 'samplings', just like Mp3's (but mp3's are a sampling of a sampling, so they represent even less of the original recording)

A CD wavelength is 'jagged' or 'stepped' compared to the original from which is was taken.

CD's do have a larger spectrum than vinyl, but have less music 'data'
Vinyl has more 'data', but doesn't have as wide a spectrum as CD

This is what makes CD's 'dry' and 'loud', and vinyl 'warm' and tonally 'full'.


/gettin my audio 'nerd' on.. sorry. I can't ever seem to resist.

[CasaDelShawn]

Listening to Suicidal Tendencies self-titled album through 4 Sansui SP-2000 speakers and a Sansui QRX-7001 Quad receiver right now. Ahhh...

Getting ready to test our "Wall of Sansui" featuring three pair of SP-2000, two pair of SP-200, one pair SP-2500, one pair SP-3500, and an SP-30 (can't find the second 30).

Terrible cell pic:



(two SP-2000s in their original boxes not shown in that pic)

Photo of SP-2000 ganked from random web source:



They have all of the drivers.

[GeoffD]

Compact Discs are not compressed.

I can see why someone may think a CD is compressed due to the fact that CD's do not contain a 'full recording'. CD's are digital 'samplings', just like Mp3's (but mp3's are a sampling of a sampling, so they represent even less of the original recording)

A CD wavelength is 'jagged' or 'stepped' compared to the original from which is was taken.

CD's do have a larger spectrum than vinyl, but have less music 'data'
Vinyl has more 'data', but doesn't have as wide a spectrum as CD

This is what makes CD's 'dry' and 'loud', and vinyl 'warm' and tonally 'full'.


/gettin my audio 'nerd' on.. sorry. I can't ever seem to resist.

Technically, the CD vs vinyl thing depends on what frequency band you're talking about. At lower frequencies, CD is more accurate. The crossover where vinyl is superior is up around 1 kHz but they're quite close up to 5 kHz. Middle C on a piano is about 300 Hz. The top note on a piano is around 5 kHz. As the frequency gets closer to CD's 40-ish kHz sample rate, you get more and more distortion. At 5 kHz, you get 8 samples and that can fairly accurately reproduce the sound.

I'm old enough and listened to enough loud music in my life that I can't hear the difference.

[F1_Fan]

As the frequency gets closer to CD's 40-ish kHz sample rate, you get more and more distortion.

Just for clarity, the 44.1 kHz sample rate doesn't reflect the maximum frequency the audio sampled on a CD is capable of. It's limited to 22.05 kHz due to the Nyquist sampling theorem (essentially, the sampling rate has to be 2x the maximum frequency).

Age as well has not been kind to my hearing on one side though... at this point I'll settle for accurate reproduction w/o sweating about theoretical limits and worrying about analog vs. digital.

At 5 kHz, you get 8 samples and that can fairly accurately reproduce the sound.

Well, for the fundamental frequency at least... you'll also be getting a few more samples on the harmonics but your point is still valid.

SACD tried to address this with a much higher sampling frequency but it never really caught on. I suppose that was because while audiophiles were arguing the public discovered MP3 and Napster.

[GeoffD]

Just for clarity, the 44.1 kHz sample rate doesn't reflect the maximum frequency the audio sampled on a CD is capable of. It's limited to 22.05 kHz due to the Nyquist sampling theorem (essentially, the sampling rate has to be 2x the maximum frequency).

Age as well has not been kind to my hearing on one side though... at this point I'll settle for accurate reproduction w/o sweating about theoretical limits and worrying about analog vs. digital.



Well, for the fundamental frequency at least... you'll also be getting a few more samples on the harmonics but your point is still valid.

SACD tried to address this with a much higher sampling frequency but it never really caught on. I suppose that was because while audiophiles were arguing the public discovered MP3 and Napster.

My engineering training is in digital signal processing. I laugh when the audiophile rags talk about Nyquist. You can't accurately reproduce a 22 kHz sin wave with a 44 kHz pulse coded modulation sample rate. You get a saw tooth. Take a signal generator and feed a sin wave and a saw tooth into a speaker. They sound very different. When you overlay multiple frequencies, you end up getting all kinds of false harmonics. With PCM, you really need about 8 samples to come close. Voice telephone networks sample at 8 kHz. That's why women sound so lousy on the telephone. A lot of their signal is above 1 kHz and it distorts like crazy. A man talking down at 300 Hz sounds fine.

I honestly can't hear the difference between CD and SACD. Maybe when I was 16, I might have been able to. I work a lot with wideband voice codecs that are designed to do telehone calls with frequencies up to 7 kHz instead of the 3.1 kHz in today's phone network. With women, you can really hear the difference.

I can definitely hear the difference between MP3 and CD. MP3 isn't a very good compression codec but the patents go back to the 1980's and have mostly expired so everybody uses it. Nobody wants to pay the royalties on a better codec and when you put MP3 in consumer products with a sub-$10 bill of materials, you're not going to use something where you have to pay any royalties. G.722 is the same way with wideband voice. It's not the greatest codec but everybody uses it since the patents have expired. I've been sucked into patent litigation enough times to know that you don't want to do anything that steps on those kinds of patents. A judge can shut your company down.

[VWVan]

I just got this yesterday, an Elac Miracord H50.





Sounds great compared to my basic Pioneer PL-10. I just hooked it up and it was good to go. Direct drive so no belt to replace. Its nice that its fully automatics, although I haven't got the continuous multi record thing to work.

[CasaDelShawn]

I just got this yesterday, an Elac Miracord H50.

Too cool! I actually just had someone email me earlier this morning looking for an H50 or something similar. The 770 is "the one to have", or so I've been told, but as long as it sounds good to you, rock with it!

I dragged home another amp last week; a factory-built Hafler DH-120. Super-beefy 60 WPC stereo unit, built back when David Hafler was in charge. It's no monster, but has current output for days and will drive my home-builts (~93dB efficient, ~5ohm static load) very nicely.

[VWVan]

I also have the Elac brochure. The line up went like this: 620, 630, 50h, 750, 770H.

I'm not going to type it out all out, but basically it has all the same features of the 50H, plus you can set the speed precisely as 33 1/3 or 45, and a stroboscopic ring on the turn table will read out the speed in numbers. Or you can vary the speed as much as 3% either way. You can also adjust the angle of the stylus up to 15 degrees for when you have a stack of 6 or 7 records waiting to be played. Oh, the retail was $175 for the 50H less base and cartridge, and $225 for the 770H less base and cartridge.

[Minker17]

This was my Grandfather's. Hasn't been used in years, so I'm not sure if it still works. Anyone familiar with the model or brand?

Centrex (Pioneer) KH-767. It's in pretty good condition, now I just need some speakers.

[CaptainQualude]

Buy some decent used speakers for it & try it out. It appears to be a pre-entry level non-Pioneer branded unit. Year of manufacture is 1977-80. It may surprise you.

[Obin Robinson]

i absolutely love vintage gear. i used to have a set of tube amps but sold them before i went to college. i got rid of most of my vintage gear but i am considering using vintage gear in my studio.

i want this Pioneer M-22 amp:


and a Mitchell turntable:


i will get them some day. i just have other projects that are a bit more pressing.

obin

[Minker17]

Good to see you, Obin.

[VR6Bomber]

If anyone knows where I can get a 45 adapter for a Marantz TT please let me know.
I've been looking for one for a bout 1 1/2 years with no luck.

Appearently you need the 45 adapter to fit the cartridge properly on Marantz turntables?

If anyone has pointers on how to do it properly w/o the 45 adapter let me know!

Thanks
James

[CaptainQualude]

If anyone knows where I can get a 45 adapter for a Marantz TT please let me know.
I've been looking for one for a bout 1 1/2 years with no luck.

Appearently you need the 45 adapter to fit the cartridge properly on Marantz turntables?

If anyone has pointers on how to do it properly w/o the 45 adapter let me know!

Thanks
James

What's the model of the TT? You may be able to buy a cartridge with a 45° bend instead of an adapter.

[VR6Bomber]

What's the model of the TT? You may be able to buy a cartridge with a 45° bend instead of an adapter.

Hmm That would be interesting. I thought a 45 adapter would be easier and cheaper to come by than a whole new cartridge. (And we all know how much we can spend on cartridges)

I have a Marantz 6300 with a Grado silver cartridge.
I've just 'tilted' the cartridge in a bit in lieu of the correct method that requires the 45 adapter.

I'm even looking for marantz TT's 'for parts' that have a 45 adapter.

In other news: for those with Vintage Klipsch;
I just bought a pair of titanium replacement diaphragms for my K-74 tweeters and a crossover recap kit for my KG4's from a company called 'B&K Sound' aka Critesspeakers.com
I did the diaphragm replacement last night, and WOW those tweeters came to life!!!
Very crisp and clear. Very measurable difference.
Crossover recap will be for this weekend's 'Hurricane Earl'.
I think that I paid 130- for both tweeters and cap sets. Highly recommended for those with older Klipsch. I believe that he has 'refresh kits' for all models.
Wish that I had done this earlier!

[CaptainQualude]

Hmm That would be interesting. I thought a 45 adapter would be easier and cheaper to come by than a whole new cartridge. (And we all know how much we can spend on cartridges)

I have a Marantz 6300 with a Grado silver cartridge.
I've just 'tilted' the cartridge in a bit in lieu of the correct method that requires the 45 adapter.

Could you please explain to me where the 45° adapter goes? I just realized it might not be what I thought it was. Would an original head shell be a better option, or can those not be right either?

[vanaman]

well i guess im part of this croud. I have 2 systems and a stacks of other equipment

bedroom system
Sansui Au-999 amp
Sansui au-9500 tuner
Mitsubishi turntable
cheap jvc cassette deck
Home built JBL's (D123 woofer, LE2 tweeter and lx20 x-over)

basement system
Harmon Kardon Citation 16 power amp
Nad 7155 reciever using as a preamp/tuner
JBL L26



is the spare stack is some great gear ans some that needs repair
Sansui 890db
AR xb
marantz 2270
Wharfdale w60c
EV model 4
bose 901
misc jbl speaker parts.


list of sold gear
Sansui TU-9900
JBL L220
Altec model 14
Altec 604b
JBL L26



i wish i kept some of that gear.

steve

[VR6Bomber]

I found some gear in taking up space in my basement if anyone is interested: I will sell pretty cheap:

BOZAK 201 (code 7612) speakers

Sony TC-k501 Casette deck

I have some AV gear but not sure if I want to part with it yet: let me know if anyone might be interested though

Paradigm center channel speaker
Chambridge Soundworks 'Bass Cube 8' Subwoofer
Chambridge Soundworks M-80 speakers

[vanaman]

i wouldnt mind some bozaks. where you at?

[VR6Bomber]

i wouldnt mind some bozaks. where you at?

NJ, there aren't very big speakers for shipping. When people think Bozak they gernally image those monsterous wood boxes.
PM with your contact information me if you are interested

[CaptainQualude]

I have on & off again thoughts of putting a set of old school rock speakers in the garage to go with the Marantz 2235B. Something in a 3 or 4 way with a 12 or 15" woofer.

[ATL_Av8r]

I was pissed when my parents moved and my dad threw out his Pioneer QX-949 because the rear channel had crapped out. Hmm....maybe I'll hit up Craigslist for a garage receiver.

[CaptainQualude]

Hmm....maybe I'll hit up Craigslist for a garage receiver.

What decade are you looking at? I always wanted a 1970's vintage Kenwood, or from the late '70's or '80's a Technics receiver.

The holy grail.



http://www.hifi-museum.com/js/monste...icsSA1000.html

[GeoffD]

What decade are you looking at? I always wanted a 1970's vintage Kenwood, or from the late '70's or '80's a Technics receiver.

The holy grail.



http://www.hifi-museum.com/js/monste...icsSA1000.html

I have the SA 400 little brother of that receiver in the master bedroom of my vacation home. I bought mine in 1978. Other than pulling it apart a half-dozen times over the years to spray contact cleaner on the switches and knobs when they oxidised, it's always been bullet-proof.

[Obin Robinson]

I am noticing a lot of people in this thread who talk about the vintage Sansui gear. It's been so long since I've heard any Sansui gear that I can't remember if they were really that good. How does Sansui compare, for example to Pioneer or Fisher gear from the same era? Is it that much better?

obin

[CaptainQualude]

I haven't heard the classic Sansui product in years. It would depend on the receiver. Some are better than others. I was unaware that Fisher was ever considered good. Must be because I remember the garbage that had their name on it in the '80's, but the same could be said today about Sansui labeled products.

Marantz seems to have the most longevity & also the most people available to repair a vintage product. I've always been tempted to buy vintage Pioneer, Rotel, Kenwood, NAD, & Technics electronics.

I was out in the garage today figuring out where to place speakers & run wire for the 2235B & CD-63SE combo I have out there.

[RENOG]

Hey vrs6bomer can you post some pictures of your stuff?

[ATL_Av8r]

What decade are you looking at? I always wanted a 1970's vintage Kenwood, or from the late '70's or '80's a Technics receiver.

No specific decade, but the QX-949 just reminds me my childhood.

[VR6Bomber]

Hey vrs6bomer can you post some pictures of your stuff?

Th stuff for sale? any particular item you are interested in?