Stereo Receivers from the past...


Perhaps a useless question, but even though I am not a politician I have the right to be useless sometimes! 
In thinking about a second bedroom system...If I were to use a receiver any toughts on good sounding ones you have had.  The best I have had, in the past, were the original Magnum Dynalab 208 and the Nakamichi SR-3a.  I had sold both.  But now with thinking of a bedroom system those do come to mind, but wondering if you have experienced a stereo receiver that you feel is better.  I am not much into compressed streaming but do enjoy a local/public classic Jazz station and the Jazz and female vocals music I own.   Thanks 
whatjd

Showing 1 response by 8th-note

If you are willing to go with two pieces of gear instead of one it is generally better to go with an integrated amp plus a separate tuner. Integrated amps were built to be more robust than receivers and will often handle difficult speaker loads better.

An example would be a Denon PMA 2000R or 2000IVR. I have the latter and it is an incredible amp. It puts out 80 watts into 8 ohms and 160 watts into 4 ohms. It is a brute of an amp (nearly 60 lbs) and has all the features you could want. It runs my desktop system where I've matched it with a Denon tuner and a Denon CD player of similar design and vintage. It's an attractive stack. I paid $500 for my Denon PMA 2000IVR in pristine condition with remote.

One advantage of going with a separate amp and tuner is that if you are seriously into FM listening you can get a better tuner than you would typically find in a receiver.

I've had several vintage receivers including a Pioneer 1010 and a Marantz 2325. These were beautiful pieces and I wish I had kept them. They now go for ridiculous prices - especially the Marantz 2325, but my Denon combination certainly outperforms them.