Paul McGowan "How Good was audio equipment of the 70s"

Here's my 2¢ My system is mostly well chosen modern, with a few well chosen vintage pieces in the mix. You should be happy with your choices, if not experiment more. I agree that "most" of the common mass produced gear of the 70's, IMO YMMV is not worth spending the time and bucks on. Again this is my opinion and again Your Opinion May Vary. What impresses me the most is how well vintage and modern gear work together.
 
Well... a number of those cited speakers, are IMHO, designed badly in the first place. Impedance dips to below 1 ohm (Apogee and Infinity especially)- those speakers were known as "amp killers"- and I've seen many a "high end" amp of the era (Conrad-Johnson, Hafler, Audio Research, Belles, Counterpoint and the like) blown up by people trying to get room-filling volume level out of those speakers. If you frequented audio repair shops like I did, in the 1980s and 1990s, you'd have seen plenty of these amp carcasses there- many of them smoked to the point where circuit board replacement was the only way to reliably repair them. I personally remember seeing ARC and Counterpoint amps going up in showers of sparks, in that era- it was an adventurous time to be involved in the higher-end part of this hobby!

There's a very good reason why speakers aren't designed that way anymore, for the most part. These speakers were "equal opportunity amp eaters"... it wasn't just cheap amps.

I had one client with Apogees- the final solution for him for an amp, was a Urei 6260. 300w/ch of studio-grade professional amplifier. That was the only amp that could survive for any length of time on his Scintillas, at the volume levels he preferred...

Regards,
Gordon.

Perhaps how you define "badly designed" matters. If you are looking at the impedance demands on the amplifier then they are bad designs, as they are very difficult to drive. If you are evaluating their sound quality and presentation of music, they were iconic. It is my opinion speakers of this ilk were the target for speaker designs that followed, but had more forgiving impedance curves. But there are amps that can drive them, they are just not cheap. An Adcom 55 or B&K ST202 are nice amps if used in their capabilities, but have no business driving say a pair of Martin Logan CLS.

Yet today the CLS continues as the CLX, and has been improved as its impedance load is more benign. It still won't be driven by a typical 70's era receiver well, but it isn't the amp killer its ancestor is.

But as far as sound quality....those speakers were magical.

Cheers
Mister Pig
 
The good part about Audiokarma is there is such a wide variety of equipment. From integrated, receivers to component sets. I'm sure Paul was not trying to start a race war and every one is entitled to an option. That being said Paul has been in search of audio nirvana his whole life. He has heard what some of us have only had a glimpse at. It's all relative, we live within our means. We buy, lust after and finally obtain the units we sought. Repaired, restored or modified they our ours. I'm sure everyone is equally proud of what they have. I find musicians and artists are very critical to reproduction of sound. Not all of the every day listeners have a exquisite plait and that's the great part. We live in a time where we can have the best of booth worlds . Very high end gear, vintage and a treasure chest of quality parts in which we can bring these jewels back to life. We should be open to everyone's opinion and support all.
 
Hook up those Kenwood and Pioneer receivers to vintage Apogee Scintillia, Acoustat 1+1, Martin Logan CLS, Infinity Kappa 9, early Thiel, or Celestion SL 600. You will find out what the build quality is in anywhere from 2 weeks to 6 months. Heck hook up a Kenwood L series amp, or Yamaha M series amp, and you are going to get the same result, but closer to the 6 month mark.
<snip>

My KR 9050 did just fine with my ML CLS's for the better part of the year I was playing with them. The real amp killers were the Quad ESL's, I never tried the 9050 with them. The 9050 spends it's days now driving a pair of Ohm F's, which is light duty.

I only ever tried a couple of receivers with the Quads, including more modern ones, and none could handle the load. None of the standalone power amps I owned had a problem with them. Kind of wish I tried the 9050 with them, just to see.

Are we supposed to be bashing receivers in this thread, or just anything that came from Pioneer or Kenwood? I kind of lost track.

bs
 
Are we supposed to be bashing receivers in this thread, or just anything that came from Pioneer or Kenwood? I kind of lost track.

I think just receivers, they are the Yugo’s of the audio world after all :banana::rolleyes:
 
gotta love AK


Some 'audiophiles' get pissed when they cant really enjoy the music from their $50K and up systems all the while reading that some love the music from their $1K or less systems

Of course there's the flip-side of that ^ coin

Most music lovers on here (IMO) think to each his own

BTW-- listening to Don Mclean's American Pie CD on some ChiFi equipment through a pair of mid 70s Japanese speakers - Great music
 
Guys, let's get real here for a second. No consumer ever walked into a stereo shop in the 70s and purchased a $199 integrated to drive their $2,500 boutique speakers. The argument that said unit can't drive said speakers as good as a well designed boutique power amp is just silly.

Hell I guess we should all just drive a Mercedes ... I mean, the road appears to be littered with crap.
 
with all due respect, he is an idiot and there is no empirical (anecdotes dont count) evidence that anything his company builds today is any better sounding in any way, than the 'dreadful' pioneer DD I have 4 feet to my right. nor the 10's of thousands owned by people here.

how do we know how it sounds? because we listen to it and we can restore it. and we can improve it. I suspect, he cannot and he pays handsomely for chinese clone material to repackage by someone else as overpriced junk. YMMV. op amp cookbook? fer chrissake we used that in jr high to build shit for science class.

kinda tired of reading, listening or watching reviews using subjective criteria. they read too much like wine tastings 'it finishes well with just a just a hint of austrailian heeler feces mixed with bavarian hops' and - somewhat not surprisingly - are ALSO created by idiots.

OF course, the entire premise and thread is one of those passive aggressive 'I wanna feel better about myself by dismissing your tastes' jobs.

Worthless.

Any anyone who disagrees with me has a mother who wears army boots
 
Trying to remember my 70s audio progression, I went from a PX return shop VM 3 piece start to a Marantz 1030 or 1060(?) that ultimate sounded "grainy" to me with store stock 3-ways and later Hereseys, to a Marantz 3600 fronting a Phase 400 into Dahlquist DW-10s. Now, that's nice!
Sold that for a compact system for a 2nd European military assignment, Lecson AC1/AP3 pair into Rogers LS-3/5A. And the quest continued.
 
This thread disappoints me on so many levels.

My man @superdog said it best a page back. Go back and read his post.

I have McIntosh Line Array XRT20's that I have no business owning, honestly. They bring me a level of sound I heretofore did not experience.

With that said, my trusty AU-G99X Sansui has also brought me pleasure. Hell, my GE boombox when I was 12 topped them all.

Silver faced receivers sound fantastic for all but the most demanding of listeners. There is better, there is worse.

Why do some want to overstate the capabilities of machines built 40 years ago, many still working just fine, and why do those who can afford much better get so bent out of shape due to some hyperbolic statement from the proles??

We've beaten this sad topic to death, with the usual white knights in both camps. Shuddup and spin some damn tunes, already.

Yes, I actually happen to own McIntosh (an MA 5100 integrated amplifier), a Sansui (a 4000 receiver), and a Kenwood (A KA 405 integrated amplifier). I enjoy all 3 of these units, they drive Phase Tech Euro Monitor speakers, Dynaco A 25 loudspeakers, and The Advent Loudspeaker, in the same order as their amplifier and receiver compliment. All 3 deliver non fatiguing, easy to listen to music, with plenty of detail, all are matched to their spaces, and their associated source components, and the music they play. It's really all about enjoying the music here. I can live with all 3, they do things the other does not. I also tend to when listening for pleasure to listen to something not excessively forensic (doing broadcast and audio engineering, I need forensic, very resolving for that work). Enjoy and be happy with what you have when dialed in and it's a balanced system with proper synergy. Much truth, onwardjames, in what you post. Much wisdom, and practicality in that advice. You are eloquent about how you say it, in better ways than I often can express. Also, in many AK members situations, there's budgets to respect, other people who share those spaces, and the gear and music collection must co-exist along side those considerations. As always, enjoy the music. I am music first, equipment serves that music and my use case.
 
Iirc, John Ulrich at Infinity developed the SWAMP to drive the Infinity speakers' quirky loading.
 
Guys, let's get real here for a second. No consumer ever walked into a stereo shop in the 70s and purchased a $199 integrated to drive their $2,500 boutique speakers. The argument that said unit can't drive said speakers as good as a well designed boutique power amp is just silly.

Hell I guess we should all just drive a Mercedes ... I mean, the road appears to be littered with crap.
Yep...that is what I was thinking.
This thread reminds me of a thread a while back where the topic of discussion was how good some totl early 2000 AVRs sounded in stereo.It was going just fine and then someone pipes in."yeah but don't be comparing them to hi quality separates".Nobody was except him.Some people just can't let it be.They just got to piss in the cornflakes.
 
As a tech working on equipment, I like 1970s Japanese equipment way better than new stuff, because you can pull the cover off, troubleshoot a problem, change parts, and still have time for a coffee. High end equipment can be like a Chinese puzzle to take apart, and often contains questionable design choices from a basic engineering perspective. Also, 1970s equipment is great to work on because it's mostly discrete, and you're not chasing impossible to find ICs, or difficult to work with surface mount parts. I also find that the service literature from the big names, which has wide distribution, is head and shoulders above the more obscure stuff. I also think the parts quality is higher than a lot of newer equipment.

As for what I like to listen to? Well that's simple, 1950s tube equipment. Is that better than new stuff? Who cares, it's not really anyone's business how I spend my leisure time :)
 
My Tandberg TR2075 survived a loud party driving 4 loudspeakers where one KEF B200 woofer shorted out.
I do not know if a shorted woofer qualifies comparable to a low Z speaker.
This receiver went very hot during a 1985 party, it did not go defective and now it still performs in the living room.

A bottle a day keeps the doctor away.

A good receiver keeps the japanese-gear basher away, although this is a european old receiver

Brands acting as used car competitor bashers do not deserve credibility, imo.
 
As a tech working on equipment, I like 1970s Japanese equipment way better than new stuff, because you can pull the cover off, troubleshoot a problem, change parts, and still have time for a coffee. High end equipment can be like a Chinese puzzle to take apart, and often contains questionable design choices from a basic engineering perspective. Also, 1970s equipment is great to work on because it's mostly discrete, and you're not chasing impossible to find ICs, or difficult to work with surface mount parts. I also find that the service literature from the big names, which has wide distribution, is head and shoulders above the more obscure stuff. I also think the parts quality is higher than a lot of newer equipment.

As for what I like to listen to? Well that's simple, 1950s tube equipment. Is that better than new stuff? Who cares, it's not really anyone's business how I spend my leisure time :)

I also do tubes for all the reasons you stated for working on 70’s gear, my old tube gear could not be easier to work on! Plus it sounds great
 
Sure I have no doubt Pioneer and Kenwood had some less than great gear over the years but they also cranked out a lot of gear. Personally I wouldn't call the SA-8500 II or its big brother the SA-9500 II garbage by a long shot. They're built like tanks and sound good. Plus the fact so much of their gear still works is a testament to their engineering.
 
Guys, let's get real here for a second. No consumer ever walked into a stereo shop in the 70s and purchased a $199 integrated to drive their $2,500 boutique speakers. The argument that said unit can't drive said speakers as good as a well designed boutique power amp is just silly.

Hell I guess we should all just drive a Mercedes ... I mean, the road appears to be littered with crap.


Bingo! The straw man arguments are so silly sometimes.
 
Back
Top Bottom