Imagine walking into a stereo shop and these are sitting on the shelf as current models offered by the respective manufacturers. I’m sure it would cost an arm and a leg, but it would be awesome if someone made such a retro stereo with metal, glass and wood.
Bought my sx780 in the fall of 1979 . I just replaced the 3 bulbs in the face dial with led bulbs. Cool blue looks great. It still plays great for my purposes.
I purchased my SX-780 in 1980 brand new when i was seventeen and the modules gave up a time or two over the years but i still have and still use this absolutely fantastic beast of a receiver daily.The 780 was rated at 45 watts per channel but they actually are a bit more powerful than that.. I've never turned mine up higher than the six o'clock position and it is plenty LOUD enough for my purposes.Pair this with a quality turntable and speakers.It will not disappoint.I have been through countless receivers in my life but,the 780 has survived them all.
I liked the 780, a lot, but I have to admit that I recently sold it, along with some AR-48S speakers. I'm glad to have them in a good home where they can be enjoyed. I decided on the Marantz as the "keeper" (at least until I get something better still).
@@Lancaster_Hi-Fi Those Marantz receivers are really special and i'd love to have one but the way the prices keep climbing on these vintage components i'm afraid i'll never have one except by some miracle.
@@patriciawilson9666 I know what you mean, for sure, because "some miracle" is basically how I got mine. Someone donated it to the thrift store where my son worked, and he saw it first and put dibs on it for me. He doesn't work there anymore, so that's one source of minor miracles gone!
@@Lancaster_Hi-Fi Wow! That sure was a miracle though.Some day i'd like to get my hands on one of the Pioneers from the 50 series like an SX-750 or even an SX-737 they look so cool. Those would be a miracles for me.
I gave my son an SX-828 that I restored. I could quibble with the aesthetics until I turn on the power. That dial face is sublime! And the wood case is also quite nice.
Both good stereo recievers, however Marantz is known to have been the top of the line stereo reciever of the 70's. I much prefer Pioneer Stereo receivers and component systems, as I do have a Pioneer stereo reciever myself. I also really like the JC Penney's brand MCS stereo receivers and component systems they had to offer to. A lot 70's stereo receivers that were silver faced recievers were built with a lot of quility and a great deal of strength in peak performance and engineering. They just simply were the very best at that time. The current day black recievers, are alright, I guess, however the silver faced stereo component systems just simply are a much better sounding reciever, better looking reciever and simply does everything much BETTER all the way round as far as looks and performance are concerned.
Yeah, I agree with almost all of that. For the money, the SX-828 and 838 are today a great buy relative to Marantz. I might have to devote a whole video to the SX-828 if I can get my son to let me borrow the one I gave him.
Most times when you do these 2252 shootouts I like the Marantz the least (at least so far), but in this case, it's a hand's down winner. Funny because usually the 2252 has a mid range bump that I don't like at all, but in this case, the Pioneer presents "way" more mid range, while the 2252 sounds fuller & warmer. I wasn't expecting that. Strange.
I also have a Sansui G-7500 and you can tell the external quality is not has high using more plastic knobs and such. The sound quality is excellent though.
I use to have the Marantz 2265B why back in the eighties Such a nice unit to look at Can't remember how it sounded : ( Then went to a Denon, Yamaha with 125 watts a side Can't remember model numbers Bought VAC PA 80 80 tube amp and ARC LS15 tube preamp in the mid nineties and still have in my rig to this day
Some day I’m going to have to do a shoot out with my SX 1250 and the Marantz 2325 . Right now one is upstairs and the other is downstairs. Right now I’m not motivated enough to carry the Pioneer down there and then back up . Both have been recapped so they both sound great. Maybe one day I’ll do a switch. We will see. Thanks for the video 👍🎸🎸
Playing that loud they both sounded terrible, but the Marantz sounds warmer! High volume creates distortion and fatigues your ears very quickly! Try to enjoy both of those beauties at normal listening levels, you will see what they both can do!
I can go along with that. Quite frankly it's real nice to have a top of the line high watt per channel stereo receiver and component system, however, face it, your not ever going to use all those watts per channel, it's just simply a waste of both sound and music. And listening to them at a normal listening level is a much better fit than listening to them with the chance and opportunity to blow out a stereo speaker.
I didn't expect to hear any difference. I historically don't care for youtube comparisons for obvious reasons. With that said the difference was very big. The Marantz was less bloated and much more detailed.
Hmmmmm, a bit of a tougher comparison here. At first I though the Pioneer was going to win out, but either your Pioneer just isn't as strong in the low end, but I was surprised to see that the Marantz had more extension here. For mids and highs, no surprise, the Marantz gets it there, as I expected, but the Pioneer is VERY close. Perhaps it could be the speakers and how they match up with the amp as usually Pioneer has a decent low end. When you mentioned going through the Marantz, but not the Pioneer, that could be a reason there. As for the distortion on the former, I had run into that as well with loose connections. One of the 'joys" of owning a vintage piece of equipment. In terms of looks...the Pioneer wins. I like the warmer look of it. The highly polished "silver" look of the Marantz with the blue makes it more stark looking. I always preferred a warm incandescent glow or even a green glow like on the Onkyo units. I would say the wood sides on the Pioneer helps, but you already mentioned that you can have that with the Marantz too, so that negates that out. In terms of aesthetics, I am going to say I was never fond of the horizontal tuning control on the Marantz, nor do I like the balance slider. That is often a cause of trouble on Marantz units as dust easily gets into those sliders. VU/Power meters are another plus for the Pioneer. I would say go through the Pioneer and get that up to snuff and then compare them again. One downer though. You mentioned that the Pioneer has those STK modules. That is a downer in terms of serviceability. I know you can get (fairly expensive) discrete replacements for those modules though. The current aftermarket STK modules on Ebay are usually cheap knockoffs and they don't last long.
I probably pushed the Pioneer well outside of its comfort zone in these tests. I did pretty it up nicely, though! Ultimately, the question is now moot: I sold the Pioneer with a pair of AR48S speakers. I miss those power meters, the warm face, and cherry-veneer case, but the receiver and speakers are a great match, and I'm happy that someone is enjoying it. I'm working on a Kenwood KA-9100 now. 90 wpc and power meters! We'll see, but it might displace the Marantz. Given its worth these days and how little I paid, I'd kind of be crazy to keep it!
@@Lancaster_Hi-Fi Oh, well, I guess perhaps it is for the best given that the Pioneer has those STK chips and it would be a pain to try and replace those. Still, it was a nice looking receiver. Ahhh, got a Kenwood KA-9100 now. NICE! I have it's 40 wpc little brother, the KA 5700. This is actually the second one I bought given that I sold the first one and regretted it. Love the meters and the layout on it though. The first one I had 'donated' to me when I was still working for the DJ shop. It had a blown channel and the transistors are a bit hard to find. However, it has spots on the heatsink for TO-3 devices and I changed it over to the MJ style transistors that the Crown amplifiers use. I was able to bias it a bit hotter and it sounded great. The new one I picked up I am going to do the same thing, but I bought a problem unit and there is something wrong with the power supply. When you turn it on, the lights are dim and the speaker relay doesn't click. I am suspecting a short someplace. Anyway, good luck with the KA-9100! BTW, not to be the harbinger of bad news, but as a warning just in case you didn't open it already. The 9100 did use an amp package similar to the STK's. Hmmmm, I am looking it up for you. Oh! It is a Kenwood proprietary thing, a TA-100WA. It has the TRIO brand on it and I know that is also a brand name of Kenwood.
I have an sx-780. Sad as it is to hear, the Marantz sounds better in this video. I’ve had mine since it was new so can’t comment if the sound has changed over the years. Thanks for the comparison.
I have an sx-780 too.I gotta say listening to this side by side over the interwebs it's impossible (for me anyways) to hear the difference between the two.Even with headphones on although the Pioneer did sound louder.
I purchased a clean SX 780 for $15. The right channel doesn't work. I will be taking it in for repair. Any idea what might be wrong with it and how much the repair might be? I don't want to get hosed.
These receivers have output modules that are prone to failure, and finding replacements (probably want to do both channels while it's open) might be difficult, tho I think not as difficult as it used to be. If that's the problem and the parts are available, then it's a pretty simple repair. Probably won't cost a lot more than the minimum bench fee, but I couldn't tell you what that might be. One possible option to consider is finding a local hobbyist/semi-pro guy. I would suggest using audiokarma.org to find such a person. Simply start a thread in the appropriate forum and ask for help. It's the friendliest place on the internet.
I've had my 780 since 1980 twice i've had the Darlington STK-0050 Power Packs go out.Take it to a reputable dealer and get that baby fixed.You got yourself a fantastic receiver for $15 bucks.Shouldn't cost you more that a couple hundred and it will be well worth it.
I have the same Marantz 2252 as you, and going from the NAD 3130 straight to it, I noticed the Marantz was waaaaay warmer, but sweeter and less clinical. Personally, I wont touch anything made before 1981, because having grown up in the mid-late 80s, Ive had my fill of cheap, black plastic gear.
Assuming you meant you don't touch anything made _after_ 1981, I'm generally with you. In addition to looking like BPC, the later stuff gets harder to fix, what with processor ICs and the like. I've got an Adcom preamp that I put a lot of work into, only to find that the processor chip is screwy. It won't turn off, because the power is controlled by the chip! Argh!
I was considering using the Pioneer as a preamp the other day, but it doesn't appear to have preamp outputs, at least not that I could find in the manuals. (I didn't actually check the physical unit.) I could use the tape loop, though.
I heard a difference. Number one, it’s not a great recording so it’s somewhat difficult to tell. But with headphones I preferred the Marantz. I heard better imaging and separation to some extent. The pioneer sounded more smooth but a bit hazy as far as the presentation of the sound stage. I have the pioneer SX 750 and the Marantz 2252. I think the 750 is better than the 780. But I still prefer the Marantz.
I also heard a difference using headphones. I agree that the Marantz sound had more stereo separation while the Pioneer sound to me had slightly more natural texture to the vocals and upfront. How I would describe it is with the Pioneer the band were in front of the TV while with the Marantz they were behind and more to the sides. How much of this was down to microphone placement I don’t know. Anyway, I have no skin in the game and own both Marantz and Pioneer receivers and love both makes. However, on this video I slightly preferred the Pioneer, perhaps that’s also down to my many years of listening to mono recordings.
I also like the sound of the Marantz receiver better. Pioneer sounds like a very good CD recording. And the Marantz sounds like a good recording of a live performance. Regardless, both receivers are great!
I've just run across one of these Pioneers at an estate of a recently deceased acquaintance. I don't know if it works or not, but I'm assuming it does. I also believe it's all original, untouched. What would you say it's worth unrestored?
@@patriciawilson9666 Didn't buy it. Got it for free! But it's not working... yet. Plus some free speakers! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Tz60mugoQuM.html
Is this a 2252? It look like that's the latest model of the run. The one I have is a very low serial number and there's no aluminium plate where the balance control is. I would take any discrete component receiver over the pioneer. That's why the marantz worth more than the pioneer, and that's also why they're so sought-after.
Now these days since the electricity rate is so high, it is better to have these smaller receivers than, for example, Marantz 2600, Pioneer SX-1980 or Sansui G-33000. Why anyone need to listen to 330W/Ch. receiver in your home with regular room size consuming close to 1Kw input power? 50W with efficient speaker, such as JBL L-100 or Altec voice of the theater, will be loud enough to blast your ear. The most important part of stereo system is the speaker and not so much with other units. I have many small receivers also, Marantz 2215B, 2230, 2245, 2252B and 2275. Basically all of my receivers are low powered, like these here and they sound excellent. I used to have 4400, 4300, 2270 and some Pioneers but all these high powered ones did not sound, sweeter, than smaller ones, so they are all gone, plus they all eat up electricity way too much. So it is wise to own smaller receivers than larger ones unless you can afford to operate them day after day.
Yes, you are making difinate good sense in your advise you are writing about. It's nice to have the top of the line, top of the wattage per channel set up, however, face it, your not going to use all that much power. A medium sized stereo reciever is what's best to recomend especially if you want something nice, yet it also can perform with clarity and be just as good as the top of the liners out there. Just depends on what your looking for, what you much prefer. The very low end stereo receivers and component systems that are 25, 30 watts per channel maybe 40 watts per channel at the max are sufficient enough for nice, yet conservative listening pleasure. 50 to 75 watts per channel is deemed as medium sized wattage stereo usage, and anything over 100 watts per channel is considered top of the line in the wattage per channel structure and also to perform at considerable high performance over the top levels. I prefer to stick with a two channel stereo reciever system as when you start getting into the 2 and 3 hundred watt stereo receivers capabilities to hook up for home theater usage, your now sacrificing sound quility with all that inputs coming out of the unit itself. Best to be practical in selecting a component system and to determine it wisely as to your specific needs and requirements.
Whenever I listen to my Pioneer I make sure to unplug my fridge,the only problem I’ve found is that I sometimes forget to plug the fridge back in when I’m done
Wow maybe it is RU-vid but the Marantz 2252 sounds less rich almost shallow compared to the rich fullness of the Pioneer. I always heard Marantz was supposed to be top of the line bar none. I'm sorry I'd much rather have the Pioneer. The bass on the Pioneer was heart stopping. The Marantz was not exactly tinny but the thin sound did NOT rock my world. My Sansui G9700, my Onkyo TX-8500, my Hitachi SR-2004 and my Pioneer SX-1280 all sound richer with deeper bass. I'm an artistic Philistine so maybe I just don't know how a quality receiver sounds. I know what I like and that Marantz 5250 ain't it. The little Pioneer SX-780 smoked the Marantz 2250's boots!
You're motivating me to repeat the test of the Marantz. Circumstances on the day of recording prevented me from cranking the volume on the Marantz like I did on the Pioneer. And I've done some work on the Marantz. Nothing major, just cleaning switches that were causing trouble. Don't forget, though, the Marantz says "Marantz" on the front!
@@Lancaster_Hi-Fi Thanks for sharing that because I was rather heartbroken. I wanted the Marantz to be real competition because many people I respect always tell me hearing a Marantz will effectively blow you hair back with its superior sound. I went to pick up my Pioneer SX1280 today and while out I listened to a Marantz in person. Well after I put my tongue back in and wipe away the drool, I was impressed. The Marantz does indeed sound different but it is a fresh, sharp sound. Pioneer is more a disco bass while Marantz is a more refined almost mathematically precise bass. It is almost as if Pioneer adds to the sound where Marantz plays only what is there nothing more. Both sound good for different reasons now that I heard a Marantz in person. Yes I agree your test was nice but the Marantz did not shine there like it did in my real life Marantz experience. I heard my brothers Marantz 2285B Receiver while we watched a few movies through his system. Also some music. He has a Pioneer SX-1980 in his basement media center. It too was powerful but not as refined as the Marantz. Better to best speakers also help Marantz reach their best. Well that's my two cents. Thanks for your response. Best wishes from an OLD WOLF!
@@AUTISTICLYCAN The biggest problem I have with the SX-780 is that it sounds like crap through what are supposed to be my best speakers, ADS L730's. I haven't noticed that problem with older Pioneers, like the SX-440 and the SX-828.
@@Lancaster_Hi-Fi Well you must be an audiophile. I certainly am no audiophile like you. I'm just a common man who enjoys the sound of my Pioneer SX-1050 and SX-1280 receivers. The SX generation Pioneer's sound like crap to you but some of us are luckily no blessed with your acute precise hearing. My Pioneer brings me endless joy wrapped in fine sound day after day. To each his own I guess!
Sorry to leave this hanging! I wasn't trying to disparage Pioneer receivers or suggest I have a golden ear. I was saying that receiver and those speakers were a bad match, and it wasn't subtle. I don't know why. The SX-780 sounded amazing on all of the other speakers I tried it with: Genesis II (in the video), AR48S, Hartley Zodiac. It was really weird, because it wasn't a simple issue of power; the ADS speakers sounded great with my Pioneer SX-440, which is only 12 wpc, and the SX-990 and SX-828. And everything else. The ADS have relatively low impedance, 6 ohms nominal, and maybe that was the problem. I don't know. The SX-780 was the only thing, from a 3 wpc DG-SE1 tube amp to a 100 wpc solid state Adcom, that couldn't make those ADS speakers sound amazing, and those were the only speakers that didn't make the SX-780 sound amazing. I use the past tense because I ended up selling the SX-780 with the AR48S speakers. I didn't sell it because I thought it was crap; I loved that thing. I sold it with those speakers so that guy would have an awesome system! Anyway, I'm jealous of your SX-1050 and 1280. You have a couple of legendary monsters there!
that 30wpc difference is not even negligible at those wattages, it was just a numbers game. we got a lot of great receivers out of the wars but they are all extremely overpriced. you could buy an adcom gfa 5800 and the preamp and tuner of your choice and kick the shit out of either of those receivers, in all aspects, for a fraction of the price!
I'm a Pioneer fan but the SX 780 specifically has hard to find Darlington IC chips as part of the amplifier. When they go, there are no off the shelf replacements leaving you up a creek. If you got the skills there are other replacement options but they involve expense and some risk. I don't know Marantz that well but they tend to be pretty well laid out inside and relatively easy to service with off the shelf parts. The Marantz here sounds better to my ears so in this case I would go with the Marantz. Just my $.02
That's a common opinion. Do you have experience with either NOS or new replacements? Simply being made in China can't be a disqualification. Most Nichicon caps are made in China (but that's why I use Rubicon)!
@@Lancaster_Hi-Fi I asked the two shops that work on vintage gear and both said Pioneer has that possible fatal flaw. There is a work around out there, but it's still a problem. Marantz units have a problem getting certain transistors now too. Just supply has dried up.
A lot of transistors are hard to find these days. AH-Fixit just had a video about replacing the STK's on a Realistic (I think) receiver. Ultimately, he went with the discrete-component small-board build.
I was reading a blog from a guy in Canada and he used the Darlington parts ordered from a company. They were the Chinese ones and he went through a few before they worked. Not sure how, but that was how he delt with it. I know my Marantz 2270 was held up looking for a part on the FM Detector board. I think vintage audio is great but gone over the "bell curve" for obtaining some critical parts. @@Lancaster_Hi-Fi
When compared to the crap avail today, you cannot go wrong with either one in my view. I own an SX980 and a Marantz 2240. Both recapped and completely refreshed throughout. The Marantz is probably worth a tad more, but I don't care and I'm not selling.
I thought the Marantz sounded a tad warmer in its presentation Good chance I'll be an owner of a Marantz 2325 soon I plan to install the small adapter plate that converts the speaker wire sping clips to banana connectors Also thinking of swapping out the aluminum face plate to the black anodized face plate The 2325 has tons of buttons and knobs so it should look very cool
I have put to the test a sansui 8080 vs a pioneer sxd 5000 that being said 80 rms both are rated. Polk ls 90 speaker's Yamaha tt teac cassette deck Same music everything from ACDC yes rush the who stevie ray Vaughn miles Davis and every thing in between needles to say. I am running the pioneer. first one I ever owned wow what a surprise and nether the marantz nor the sansui run Deseret anything? Go mid receiver's pioneer superior build quality. And marantz and sansui have there house sound, pioneer sound is what it sounds like at the recording studio. And yes I know this because I've bin in quite a few. In closing I never would purchase a pioneer always bin a sansui guy then marantz well not any more hats off to pioneer they reproduce sound with no additional house sound just purely the Way it was recorded very natural.
I do love Pioneer. I've got 3 Pioneer receivers and (I think) 5 Pioneer turntables. That said, all the receivers are on the shelf right now. Marantz in the living room, Sansui 2000A in the home office. I'm really attached to the Sansui, but you're right about the "house sound."
I love watching these videos of 70s receivers. I don't have one. But i did have a Pioneer tuner in the early 70s. And later a Luxmam amplifier. Now i have a Marantz SR14, 25 years already. Aka the tank ... I love it for aesthetics, build quality and sound ...
I had both, but for certain types of music the Marantz sound is unbeatable, creamy, mellow sound. I found the pioneer a bit harsh sounding, but more accurate.
Nice. I never actually listed my SX-780 for sale, but I sold it to someone who was buying some speakers that I did list. I wasn't using it, and the guy seemed like he'd appreciate it. But, I will always cherish my time with that receiver (and those power meters!).
I have the Pioneer SX-1050 which is 120 wpc and also an Onkyo TX-3000 which looks like a direct copy of the SX-780 as it had similar features and was 45 wpc.
Yeah, I don't hear much difference either. The deciding factor for me was the slightly higher power of the Marantz and, more importantly, it's ability to drive all of my speakers well. The Pioneer couldn't do that and has moved on to a new home.
I've had both and even the 880 and I have to say the marantz just had better sound quality to me . However it's all in the listener and your preference . If it sounds good to you it's good in my book 👍
Y'know, I'm a sucker for those power meters on the Pioneer, but I've really warmed up to the Marantz since making the video. Since then, I've worked out some bugs (as shown in a later video), and it seems like the sound really came to life then. It also seems to drive any speakers I throw at it with no problem. The Pioneer is now on the shelf.
@@Lancaster_Hi-Fi well of course don't throw the old girl out pioneer is still quality and yes those meters are sweet looking . However after playing with both for over a year the pioneer just doesn't have the depth of sound that the marantz can provide. Not saying because the marantz has a midrange adjustment makes it an automatic win but it definitely doesn't hurt it. And yes it even pushes my power hungry Acoustic Research ar-2a's with ease and that's not an easy task by any means.
(Still figuring out RU-vid comments!) I did end up letting the SX-780 go, but don't worry: I got decent money for it. I sold it along with some AR-48S speakers (the Teledyne era of Acoustic Research). That combo was pretty awesome.
Not even watched this yet - I can tell you from a technical standpoint the 2252 is by far the better of the two - although it's a step down from the 2250B.
Normally amplifiers can produce more power with 4 ohm speakers. Why can't the pioneer sx780 ?------ Concerning the different marantzs editions of those 70s models. In general there exist 3. First : marantz 2010...2215....2270 Second : 2220...2325 Third : 2226....2252...2600 . Could you tell something about the main differences apart from different power exposures of those three editions ?
Regarding the SX-780, or any amp, the power delivery at 4 vs 8 ohms depends on how robust the power supply is under load. I think of it as stiffness. A heavy load (small ohms) pulls down the supply unless it's stiff enough to bear up. The supply voltages will default to certain values when unloaded, and those values determine the possible signal amplitude in terms of voltage. But the power transformer can only deliver so many "volt-amps." There's no free lunch. Some amps buckle under 4 ohm loads. Very few can actually deliver twice the power at 4 vs 8 ohms. On the various Marantz lines, I know relatively little, and I'm unlikely to shell out the big bucks to sample them. So we'll see.
Nice comparison. Wanting to upgrade from my SX-650 in 1979 the SX-880 looked good. Didn't like the diminished "extra" controls of the 50 series. I bought a Hitachi SR-804 and still use it today. I did acquire a Marantz 2252B and that baby was sweet. Triple tone controls, independent for each channel, three tape loops and robust reserve power and that Marantz INDUSTRIAL look. I replaced the SR-804 with the 2252B for a few months but really liked the Hitachi better driving my Ohm Acoustics model L's and H's. The Marantz was a heavy sucker at over thirty pounds. The SR-804 is under twenty three pounds, is rated at 50wpc with 3dB headroom. Never cared for the 80 or 100 receiver series by Pioneer. I use an SX-434 in my kitchen hifi system, dig the blue back lit dial scale. I feel the better receivers should provide more power into 4 ohms than 8 ohms. Avoid the ones that don't, fuhgeddaboudit.
