These receivers aren’t just receivers. They’re pieces of fine art. And in the realm of bragging rights, they certainly get peoples attention. However, a 2230 paired with the right speakers will bring the cops just a quickly. Do you need one of these? No. Do you want one of these? Ohhhhh yeaaaaaa. 😂😂😂
This brings back memories of the time. Could not afford such a fine piece of equipment back then. I was only 20. I managed to buy the lower model of the Marantz line. Those were the days.
I would have probably not even touched it if I were to see it in a store. Of course, given the price, the probably had these in a locked room in the back.
I remember these when they came out and I would have loved to have one but my lawn mowing money just couldnt cut it. There were three receivers built on this same chassis, the 2385, the 2500 and the 2600. The 2385 looked just like this one except the oscilloscope was replaced with an analog tuning and signal strength meter. It was also a bit lower wattage but still a beast. The 2600 was just Marantz's next (and last) iteration in the stereo power war. It was, more or less, just a 2500 with a few minor "corrections" made and obviously higher wattage. After this one, they all pretty much "threw in the towel" on trying to beat each other on wattage. It was such a fun era.
The 2500, in my book, is the "real" monster receiver that kicked sand in the face of the competition at the time. The result was a similar watts war that was not unlike the 60's era muscle car wars, then it all fizzled for various reasons in a few short years. But what a fun time it was while it lasted.
I love your receiver and amplifier reviews because I love your rating system. I remember the monster receiver wars so well and it was a great time in audio history. In 1978 the Navy Exchange in Japan definitely did not carry this beauty!
Wow! That's not a receiver, it's a City Block! I used to have a Manrantz SR3600 (1989) surround sound receiver! It was also bridgeable! 110 watts x 2 in bridged mode. 40 watts x 4 in surround sound mode!
I also have one of these and love it. I'm Europe based, and the models here had two Aux inputs, otherwise the same. As for the woodcase, I think Marantz called the one-piece case the wc-124. They really set it off perfectly. They sound as good as they look, with outstanding stereo and instrument separation. Love the videos, Scott.
Just got my 2325 back from my tech and it is so awesome 😎. In 74 it was top of the line also and built to last. And the looks are for some the best looking receiver ever. 🎸👍🎶
In 1977, I was a college kid with next to no money. I always wanted one of these, or the 2600. But I did eventually acquired a nice 2265B with wood case, which I love. I wonder if the retail price difference you noted for the 2500 is due to the wood case being included or not? Curiously, several years ago on Ebay, I saw a 2500 being sold, and it was advertised as new-in-box (NIB). The asking price was out of this world. I was tempted - but to spend that much on Ebay for a receiver is a gamble. Amazing that only 1600 were made. I would have guessed 10 times that number. Enjoyed the video!
Scott, thanks for sharing that cool behemoth!!! Enjoy your channel very much 🙂 Side note: when I want to run hundreds of watts, I personally go to my pro audio amps from Crest, Crown, and QSC.
Thanks for watching! Also, I completely agree on usage. That is why I commented on what I would NOT pair this receiver with in practice. In the same way I would never recommend taking a pristine 60's era collectible muscle car to a race track for risk of damaging it. Why? Better to use something much less valuable, but a bit more expendable. Could you run some demanding speakers with this receiver, sure, but why risk it when you can buy some less expensive pro amp, in this case, and stress the hell out of it running Apogees, Infinity or whatever. But, to each their own. I don't think it says anything negative about the quality of the receiver, it was TOTL in '77 and rare, that is sufficient cred in my book.
I thought I heard that there was an inherent problem with these that was fixed with the 2600, though I could be mistaken. It is very nice looking and I wish I could find one of the audio oscilloscopes from the 70s. Pioneer, Technics and Kenwood all made them but the prices are too high now.
After the other manufacturers replied to the 2500 with their own bigger models, Marantz counter punched with the 2600 to bump up the power to 300w. Some minor tweaks to it, but there were no big issues with the 2500 to my knowledge. I meant to point out the interesting cooling setup within the 2500 to dissipate the heat, they designed it well.
Just a knockout piece. I remember seeing them and dropping my jaw. It’s funny though, I always thought they should have put Meters instead of that scope. But what do I know. They didn’t ask me. 😂
I love my brand new Onkyo with Atmos, hdmi, multi-room, Bluetooth, etc, but it looks like every other receiver out there. It isn't sexy. 1974-1982 receivers are sexy lol
Pioneers SX-1980 was their biggest at 260 watts I believe, and came out a year later. Technics made the biggest receiver ever at 330 watts, but again came out later than the Marantz.
Vintageo already answered, but this is the model that called out other manufacturers and resulted in the Pioneer SX-1980, Yamaha CR-3020, Technics SA-1000, etc. which we now call the "Monster Receivers".
@@ethimself5064 The 330 W/CH you mentioned was the Technics SA-1000, which was considered to be the most powerful (one piece) receiver made. Sansui had G-33000 where the power amplifier was in a separate chassis from the 'receiver'. The Technics _may_ have been beaten by Hitachi with their SR-2004. It is debatable because in Class AB mode the SR-2004 is rated 200 W/CH. When it switches to the +/- 98 VDC high voltage supply rails in Class G mode, it is rated at 400 W/CH. That is believable because the power _consumption_ rating of the SR-2004 at 1,100 W is much higher than the Technics SA-1000 or Pioneer SX-1980. _"Hitachi SR 2004 with its exclusive Class G amplifier delivers 200 watts per channel RMS into 8 ohms with only 0,08% THD. But during demanding musical peaks, that unique amplifier does an amazing thing. It actually doubles its power to 400 watts per channel RMS"_
The original Marantz 500 power amp also out out 250w/ch. To those who owned one it sounded much better and far more dynamic than Marantz late 70s monster receivers and could drive any load too.
The big magazine ads by the manufacturers back then, touting these Powerhouse Monster receivers implied that more watts = better sound quality. This was not so. In fact, much lesser powered amps in their own line sounded sweeter. Perfectly matching transistors is tough, and you have to match a heck of a lot more transistors with powerful amps, and even if you could, their electrical properties drift with age. None of these vintage receivers sound just like they did when new. I guess the reason my mind was not programmed to associate high power with higher quality sound was the excellent but lower powered Class A amps of the day. Would any of these powerhouses sound as good as the well under100 watt Class A Bedini amps of the day? Or Threshold amps. Not likely at all. They've gone from implying that quantity of watts equals quality, to quantity of money equals quality now. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Don't give anyone your small fortune.
These receivers aren’t just receivers. They’re pieces of fine art. And in the realm of bragging rights, they certainly get peoples attention. However, a 2230 paired with the right speakers will bring the cops just a quickly. Do you need one of these? No. Do you want one of these? Ohhhhh yeaaaaaa. 😂😂😂
Could not have said it any better.
This brings back memories of the time. Could not afford such a fine piece of equipment back then. I was only 20. I managed to buy the lower model of the Marantz line. Those were the days.
I would have probably not even touched it if I were to see it in a store. Of course, given the price, the probably had these in a locked room in the back.
I remember these when they came out and I would have loved to have one but my lawn mowing money just couldnt cut it. There were three receivers built on this same chassis, the 2385, the 2500 and the 2600. The 2385 looked just like this one except the oscilloscope was replaced with an analog tuning and signal strength meter. It was also a bit lower wattage but still a beast. The 2600 was just Marantz's next (and last) iteration in the stereo power war. It was, more or less, just a 2500 with a few minor "corrections" made and obviously higher wattage. After this one, they all pretty much "threw in the towel" on trying to beat each other on wattage. It was such a fun era.
The 2500, in my book, is the "real" monster receiver that kicked sand in the face of the competition at the time. The result was a similar watts war that was not unlike the 60's era muscle car wars, then it all fizzled for various reasons in a few short years. But what a fun time it was while it lasted.
I love your receiver and amplifier reviews because I love your rating system. I remember the monster receiver wars so well and it was a great time in audio history. In 1978 the Navy Exchange in Japan definitely did not carry this beauty!
Thanks Mike!
That is a sweet receiver Scott! Only vintage receiver I own now is a modest Pioneer SX-850, but it sounds great!
Cheers!
Nothing wrong with an 850 bro. Beautiful sounding receivers. And easy on the eyes. I had a later SX 780 I bought back in 1979 and loved it!
She is certainly a beaut!
I have never seen that one. Very cool!
Thanks for watching! And that is why I create these videos.
Wow! That's not a receiver, it's a City Block!
I used to have a Manrantz SR3600 (1989) surround sound receiver! It was also bridgeable! 110 watts x 2 in bridged mode. 40 watts x 4 in surround sound mode!
It certainly has a "presence" all to itself. 🙂
I also have one of these and love it. I'm Europe based, and the models here had two Aux inputs, otherwise the same. As for the woodcase, I think Marantz called the one-piece case the wc-124. They really set it off perfectly. They sound as good as they look, with outstanding stereo and instrument separation. Love the videos, Scott.
Just got my 2325 back from my tech and it is so awesome 😎. In 74 it was top of the line also and built to last. And the looks are for some the best looking receiver ever. 🎸👍🎶
In 1977, I was a college kid with next to no money. I always wanted one of these, or the 2600. But I did eventually acquired a nice 2265B with wood case, which I love. I wonder if the retail price difference you noted for the 2500 is due to the wood case being included or not? Curiously, several years ago on Ebay, I saw a 2500 being sold, and it was advertised as new-in-box (NIB). The asking price was out of this world. I was tempted - but to spend that much on Ebay for a receiver is a gamble. Amazing that only 1600 were made. I would have guessed 10 times that number. Enjoyed the video!
I have the 2265b fully restored damn good sound I'm missing the wood cage though
Back in '77 I couldn't afford Marantz but I did get a Superscope! Still have it.
This is the audio equivalent of Bigfoot - often talked about, but rarely seen. If you happen to find one, be prepared to pay at least $7000 for one.
They are quite rare beasts, indeed. And boy do they deliver!
Just did an inflation calculation on the sticker price😱With the low production it must have been really expensive to make them
So in today's dollars, that $1750 MSRP would be just over $9k!
@@stereoniche YIKES
Scott, thanks for sharing that cool behemoth!!! Enjoy your channel very much 🙂 Side note: when I want to run hundreds of watts, I personally go to my pro audio amps from Crest, Crown, and QSC.
Thanks for watching! Also, I completely agree on usage. That is why I commented on what I would NOT pair this receiver with in practice. In the same way I would never recommend taking a pristine 60's era collectible muscle car to a race track for risk of damaging it. Why? Better to use something much less valuable, but a bit more expendable. Could you run some demanding speakers with this receiver, sure, but why risk it when you can buy some less expensive pro amp, in this case, and stress the hell out of it running Apogees, Infinity or whatever. But, to each their own. I don't think it says anything negative about the quality of the receiver, it was TOTL in '77 and rare, that is sufficient cred in my book.
@@stereoniche Absolutely.... and good to hear from you Scott. Look forward to the next vid, we appreciate what you do
I thought I heard that there was an inherent problem with these that was fixed with the 2600, though I could be mistaken. It is very nice looking and I wish I could find one of the audio oscilloscopes from the 70s. Pioneer, Technics and Kenwood all made them but the prices are too high now.
After the other manufacturers replied to the 2500 with their own bigger models, Marantz counter punched with the 2600 to bump up the power to 300w. Some minor tweaks to it, but there were no big issues with the 2500 to my knowledge. I meant to point out the interesting cooling setup within the 2500 to dissipate the heat, they designed it well.
Just a knockout piece. I remember seeing them and dropping my jaw. It’s funny though, I always thought they should have put Meters instead of that scope. But what do I know. They didn’t ask me. 😂
LOL, well, it does stand out from the crowd with that scope.
Good job __
I love my brand new Onkyo with Atmos, hdmi, multi-room, Bluetooth, etc, but it looks like every other receiver out there. It isn't sexy. 1974-1982 receivers are sexy lol
I thought Pioneer came out with one at about 320 watts in the general time frame.
Pioneers SX-1980 was their biggest at 260 watts I believe, and came out a year later. Technics made the biggest receiver ever at 330 watts, but again came out later than the Marantz.
@@VINTAGEO Thanks👍👍
Vintageo already answered, but this is the model that called out other manufacturers and resulted in the Pioneer SX-1980, Yamaha CR-3020, Technics SA-1000, etc. which we now call the "Monster Receivers".
@@stereoniche Thanks
@@ethimself5064 The 330 W/CH you mentioned was the Technics SA-1000, which was considered to be the most powerful (one piece) receiver made. Sansui had G-33000 where the power amplifier was in a separate chassis from the 'receiver'. The Technics _may_ have been beaten by Hitachi with their SR-2004. It is debatable because in Class AB mode the SR-2004 is rated 200 W/CH. When it switches to the +/- 98 VDC high voltage supply rails in Class G mode, it is rated at 400 W/CH. That is believable because the power _consumption_ rating of the SR-2004 at 1,100 W is much higher than the Technics SA-1000 or Pioneer SX-1980.
_"Hitachi SR 2004 with its exclusive Class G amplifier delivers 200 watts per channel RMS into 8 ohms with only 0,08% THD. But during demanding musical peaks, that unique amplifier does an amazing thing. It actually doubles its power to 400 watts per channel RMS"_
And then came 1978.
Indeed, the manufacturers of Pioneer, Yamaha, Technics had their responses. A future video. 🙂
The original Marantz 500 power amp also out out 250w/ch. To those who owned one it sounded much better and far more dynamic than Marantz late 70s monster receivers and could drive any load too.
The big magazine ads by the manufacturers back then, touting these Powerhouse Monster receivers implied that more watts = better sound quality. This was not so. In fact, much lesser powered amps in their own line sounded sweeter. Perfectly matching transistors is tough, and you have to match a heck of a lot more transistors with powerful amps, and even if you could, their electrical properties drift with age. None of these vintage receivers sound just like they did when new. I guess the reason my mind was not programmed to associate high power with higher quality sound was the excellent but lower powered Class A amps of the day. Would any of these powerhouses sound as good as the well under100 watt Class A Bedini amps of the day? Or Threshold amps. Not likely at all.
They've gone from implying that quantity of watts equals quality, to quantity of money equals quality now. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Don't give anyone your small fortune.
The 1977 Technics SA-1000 was 330 watts per channel. So the Marantz 2500 was not even close to the most powerful receiver of 1977.