So What is Still Able to Compete?

Status
Not open for further replies.
As humans (we're all humans here, right??), our capacity to hear has certain limitations that cannot be overcome. The DIY-ers know this. The savvy vintage crowd knows this. The moron who buys the 5 figure price tag, 50kg+ turntable from the fancy store with shiny displays does not know this (*cough*Clearaudio*cough*).

There is a reason why the audio industry fears public ABX testing: in most areas of high fidelity audio reproduction (but not all), by the early 80s you're getting at or very close to the limits of human hearing, and its capacity to resolve the fidelity of audio reproduction.

I would argue that the list of vintage gear that still competes is a very long one. Some of it can be purchased very cheaply. If you are willing to blend old, new, pro and DIY gear, you can get cost-no-object performance for well under 10k USD. Personally, for my main stereo listening, I find I'm pretty damn close these days at a whopping price tag of what would be about 1500-1600 USD. Mind you, I buy second hand, and below market rate at that!

Go to any major high-end, cost-no-object audio store with a trade-in section. Go to their main listening room. Now they might have a set of very, very fine vintage speakers (particularly electrostatic or planar speakers) that have come in via trade-in. Maybe we're looking at a price tag of 2k-5k if the store is interested in offering fair market value used gear. Chances are, they're off to the side on the showroom floor, not plugged into anything. Maybe there's a little system going, but that's risky for the store. Above all, they wouldn't dare put those speakers in the main system room. It could mean ruin. As a buyer interested in the best of the best, why spend 50k when you can spend 2-5, and get something that's the same or better? Yes, better!

Let's think about what would happen if the retailers of modern cost-no-object gear put the finest vintage gear into the mix, side by side. The distributors of the new gear would get angry. The store would take a huge hit financially, even if their margins on trade-ins were decent. Some customers would turn away straight away and head right for the main second-hand market.

Areas in which modern gear has a distinct advantage that's potentially rather audible in an ABX context (let's say 1990 and beyond here):

--Floorstanding speaker performance below ~30hz (i.e. not particularly relevant for the vast majority of music listening).
--Bookshelf speaker performance below ~50hz.
--Subwoofers.
--Digital signal processing, and the corrective opportunities that it offers.
--AD / DA ICs themselves, which can yield excellent results when utilised in modified vintage pro DA & AD Converters / DATs

EDIT: I'll chuck digital audio playback and formats in there, though really 16bit 44.1khz is all you need, CD transport or lossless/FLAC. CD transports were rather sorted by the mid-90s.

I may have missed a thing or two overall, but for music listening that's about it. Yikes, long list! :rflmao:

If you're looking to buy: there's plenty of amazing gear from the 80s and 90s that goes for absolute peanuts. Happy to share my own set-up and make recommendations if there's interest.

I'd be interested in reading your recommendations.

Welcome to AK!
 
This photo is from the owners manual for a pair of amps made for the 1990 model year. Take note of *all* of the specs. I'd put them against anything.
IMG_4285.JPG
The other amp here has a s/n of 120 dB, damping f of 300. I suppose I'm saying I don't feel compelled to deliberately run out and see what might match or better what I have. I was picky about these choices in the first place, taking a lot of factors into consideration. I really like what I hear here.
However, it doesn't stop me from visiting the various hifi stores around me, it's always great to keep up and chat with the staff.
 
Last edited:
I'm with motorstereo on this one. I know a guy with a clearaudio table that he says is a good 40% better than his highly tuned, tweaked and armed vintage tables. I believe him. I doubt that manufacturers of the better gear are out there producing gear that can't simply wipe the world of vintage gear in sound quality. We have learned a lot in the 35 years and that learning is in many phases of the gear. Materials of construction for so many components. Anyone that thinks old gear can compete with the expensive gear today doesn't have the hearing ability to discern the difference and can save thousands getting a great vintage setup and enjoy. Nothing wrong with that.

There are great pieces through the years but in general, higher end gear just keeps getting better and hearing that difference doesn't need triple blind, double fluffernutter, single switched double dipole operations and test results for many to just listen and hear the difference.
 
Last edited:
I'm somewhere in between TheOnlyGirl and motorstereo. About what the lady said... "our capacity to hear" ...two things: 1st, we don't hear the same, everyone hears at least a tiny bit different, so it is possible that I maybe hear a little more or better than you, for example, and 2nd, I believe that outside "our capacity to hear" we can still FEEL, not necessarily audibly hear with our ears, but there are other ways to feel frequencies. I believe there can be benefits from all those new developments in high-end audio, so I don't completely agree with the lady, although for the most part we are on the same line. Now, this new ultra-expensive top-of-the-line high-end gear, better than anything before... ok: let's say it CAN give 5 or 10 or 15 % better sound than the great vintage gear (in great condition). But if the price of that modern top high-end is 50 TIMES more expensive - then who is the real winner and who is the real loser when we compare great vintage with today's best?
 
But if the price of that modern top high-end is 50 TIMES more expensive - then who is the real winner and who is the real loser when we compare great vintage with today's best?


For people with the money to spend, the second buyer is the real winner and there isn't a loser. Come on folks some expensive stuff is for folks with money. Ferrari limited edition cars are not even available to those with money, one must be approved by Ferrari to acquire one of these cars new. That comes from being a long time supporter of the brand. Maybe not quite that exclusive with audio but if you were told by Ferrari your 4 million would not buy a very low production car, then spend it on 50 times more expensive audio gear and it is all good, maybe.
 
Nope not going to claim you can't hear. I don't know what you can hear. Just know there is a difference. And when it gets expensive that difference can be heard.

As to that smooth jazz. Here is how that worked. All those guys went into the studio after the Christmas/New Year's holiday season and just jammed for a couple months. Whoever had the lead, it went on his album and he thanked all the other musicians. Seemed all the guys on the albums we used when selling gear were on multiple albums with different front men/instruments.
 
Why is it that highlighting the scientific basis for choosing far cheaper vintage gear over newer, cost-no-object gear, always brings out the 'golden ears'? I try to help people save their money, I really do...

Lots of people jumping in so I'm all over the shop here!

^^^^^ The background is quieter and the dynamics are greater coming from rooms that are similar in size. If you would like to believe that old gear with less than stellar specs will rival today's best then be my guest. I must admit I was hoping and speculating the same thing but my ears proved I was wrong.

Again, this isn't particularly what I've suggested. Not all vintage gear will be up to spec. That being said, there are plenty of vintage amplifiers out there that give you a noise floor of well over 100db, a damping factor of over 30 (often 100+), 200wpc+ (i.e. headroom no longer a concern at listening levels which won't damage hearing in under 10 minutes), the capacity to drive a 1 ohm load, a THD+N rating of well under 0.1% with no weird odd order distributions (and minimal even order distribution) of harmonic distortion, and excellent build quality.

If you can find a human who can hear the difference between amplifiers like the one mentioned above, in a properly conducted ABX, then humanity has officially evolved into something new. You should contact the military (trying to find a UFO simley here, but the button isn't working and I'm not going to refresh the page haha).

Look up the Bob Carver experiment with Stereophile: he embarrassed them, and hilariously so, by proving my point.

I'm somewhere in between TheOnlyGirl and motorstereo. About what the lady said... "our capacity to hear" ...two things: 1st, we don't hear the same, everyone hears at least a tiny bit different, so it is possible that I maybe hear a little more or better than you, for example, and 2nd, I believe that outside "our capacity to hear" we can still FEEL, not necessarily audibly hear with our ears, but there are other ways to feel frequencies. I believe there can be benefits from all those new developments in high-end audio, so I don't completely agree with the lady, although for the most part we are on the same line. Now, this new ultra-expensive top-of-the-line high-end gear, better than anything before... ok: let's say it CAN give 5 or 10 or 15 % better sound than the great vintage gear (in great condition). But if the price of that modern top high-end is 50 TIMES more expensive - then who is the real winner and who is the real loser when we compare great vintage with today's best?

Yes, how we hear things is subjective, insofar as our capacity to gauge sound quality is easily fooled once our other senses and our cognitive processes come into play. When we pay more, we want to believe. Happy to provide countless pieces of scientific literature which demonstrate this, and specifically within the domain of psychoacoustics.

That's basically why we do the ABX test. Beyond this, human hearing has very, very discrete boundaries. This is actually part of the definition of what it means to be human!

Letting go of the desire to associate price and prestige with quality is very, very difficult. We live in a society where we have hammered into us the notion that money and modernity equal value and progress respectively. One of the reasons I love vintage HiFi is precisely because it flies in the face of these assumptions, and does so with style.

I'm with motorstereo on this one. I know a guy with a clearaudio table that he says is a good 40% better than this highly tuned, tweaked and armed vintage tables. I believe him. I doubt that manufacturers of the better gear are out there producing gear that can't simply wipe the world of vintage gear in sound quality. We have learned a lot in the 35 years and that learning is in many phases of the gear. Materials of construction for so many components. Anyone that thinks old gear can compete with the expensive gear today has doesn't have the hearing ability to discern the difference and can save thousands getting a great vintage setup and enjoy. Nothing wrong with that.

There are great pieces through the years but in general, higher end gear just keeps getting better and hearing that difference doesn't need triple blind, double fluffernutter, single switched double dipole operations and test results for many to just listen and hear the difference.

We actually haven't learned a lot when it comes to the physical principles underlying sound and sound reproduction. From a physics standpoint, we've learnt very, very little since the start of the 20th century.

Computers and computer-assisted design is something which has helped with certain areas, and I have acknowledged some of these areas in this thread. Subwoofers today are much better than they once were, for example, thanks to computer-assisted design. We can readily hear the difference between the top subwoofers today and the top models of the past. I'm happy to explain why.

However, most other areas of high fidelity audio crossed over beyond human hearing capacity and the rapidly diminishing returns of physical constraints long ago.

Firstly, turntable use for regular playback is already giving up on the pursuit of high fidelity sound reproduction. Same goes for valve amplification. I'd recommend looking up the spec for the CD format and understanding the scientific basis for why it was chosen. Happy to explain why it is that some HiFi enthusiasts still choose valves and turntables.

Secondly, it's important to highlight that engineering is rooted in making compromise-related choices. You have to balance a number of different variables with a turntable design. What you'll find is that the 350kg mass of Clearaudio's flagship turntable, the Statement, is a farce which flies in the face of physical principles. Isolation and vibration reduction does not require ridiculous mass. This is nonsense. There are plenty of classic turntable models that are done right, I'd happily put money on them holding their own in an ABX with anything Clearaudio can put out at an exorbitant price tag and call 'progress'. Got a Yamaha PF-800 in my repair pile (only a little work, got the box, manuals, everything!) -- I'd love to see how it holds its own.

I'd be interested in reading your recommendations.

Welcome to AK!

Thanks for the welcome! I feel like I've gotten off to a troublemaking start haha. Really, I'm just trying to help others save money and enjoy the beautiful vintage gear that's out there.

Vintage recommendation for cost-no-object competitiveness is professional broadcast reference electronics from the 70s and 80s, along with vintage electrostatic gear (Martin Logan, Acoustat, Quad ESL). With some of the really choice models, you wouldn't bother upgrading: better off integrating a modern subwoofer setup using a digital audio workstation and a digital crossover. RTA is essential. Upgrade the ICs in your DA / AD conversion chain for stunning results.

As for the source: computer with digital audio workstation.

With a little legwork, the above can be done for no more than 4 figures.

I don't like talking about my own gear much in threads like this, but I should probably put my money where my mouth is here. Note that I accept a very slight amount of compromise because I'm not particularly interested in very rapidly diminishing returns (I've never spent more than $600 USD on a single piece of gear. Certain things might tempt me higher, like choice and incredibly rare vintage Acoustat models, but I don't think I'd ever spend more than about 2-3k.). A lot of former professional gear amongst the electronics in the main setup, some from major broadcasting networks and giant entertainment venues here in Australia.

For the main setup, I have a large collection of Yamaha Professional power amplifiers from the 80s (need to get rid of some, too many). Highlights include five PC2602M's and a PC2002. I also have a Perreaux 8000C, which I honestly don't use a the moment (I feel bad about this). DACs are a Yamaha DA2X and a Sony PCM DAT. Digital signal processing gets a hand from a Behringer DEQ2496 (incredible value, deserves the cult following). Favourite speakers right now are Martin Logan Sequel II's, running with a Quad 44. If I want to use the Martin Logan Theater i, I grab the Meridian 565 and get the Trifield going. Haven't bothered with a subwoofer in months. Also haven't bothered trying out the other pre's I've picked up, or passive attenuators at that. Source is FLAC stored on network attached storage or my Tidal account, running through a Sonos Connect set-up as a transport. I have a Meridian 206b but I honestly don't listen to CDs much these days.

Repair pile has a Grand Integra M-508 power amp and a Yamaha PF800 turntable in it. Even got a set of KEF 104/2's in there but that's a bigger woodwork undertaking.

Certain parts of the setup I'm interested in improving; others can stay as-is. I find some things detract from the listening experience so I don't go there (for example, full DAW environment running everytime I play some music. I just wanna listen!).

Worth mentioning that while I readily accept some very minor compromise in my own set-up, I'm extremely happy with what I've arrived at. I've had a lot of cost-no-object system exposure over the years, and I'm just not seeing much of a difference for most things. I'd love to go the DIY sub route for home theatre, it's the only way I'm going to get near that Wilson Audio subwoofer I heard a while back. Mind you, I'm 90%+ music right now. So much to do and so little time...

For people with the money to spend, the second buyer is the real winner and there isn't a loser. Come on folks some expensive stuff is for folks with money. Ferrari limited edition cars are not even available to those with money, one must be approved by Ferrari to acquire one of these cars new. That comes from being a long time supporter of the brand. Maybe not quite that exclusive with audio but if you were told by Ferrari your 4 million would not buy a very low production car, then spend it on 50 times more expensive audio gear and it is all good, maybe.

One can rent time on a race track and drive their Ferrari at 320km/h without hurting themselves. One cannot buy a $10000+ power amp that does anything different, in a domestic listening environment, from beautiful vintage gear that goes for no more than $1500 max. One also cannot buy a 1000w+ high-end power amp new and enjoy the full power in their living room without going deaf very quickly.

Though both the Ferrari and the modern cost-no-object audio equipment examples represent luxury, indulgence and often beautiful workmanship, only one of those examples offers some sort of functional gain for the outlay.
 
Last edited:
Aw, Blue, you make me sad. You're not really going to join the ranks of those who would tell me what I can and cannot hear, are you? Say it ain't so...




Yeah I think your hearing is just fine haha. Turned down some ESL-57s and went for Martin Logans instead, though in all honesty I wish I could have done both! They needed too much work, though.
 
Why is it that highlighting the scientific basis for choosing far cheaper vintage gear over newer, cost-no-object gear, always brings out the 'golden ears'? I try to help people save their money, I really do...
But some are looking for the best sound and not for the money, just best. That is why it generates a discussion. Since AK is all about vintage and cheap, your position is very well supported here. I have bunches of vintage and cheap that is excellent. I don't think it can match today's top gear.
 
Look up the Bob Carver experiment with Stereophile: he embarrassedthem, and hilariously so, by proving my point.

That comment is laughable. Bob had to constantly tweak his amp, basically non-stop, because it was that unstable. Yes, he was able to mimic the CJ sound, but with something that could never be produced.

Really, I'm just trying to help others save money and enjoythe beautiful vintage gear that's out there.

Who appointed you the savior? You have no right to tell others how to spend their money or call them morons for spending more than you would.
 
I would think they have as much right as anyone else to post an opinion.

Calling anyone's comment laughable is insulting and not in the sprit of this thread. We are here to learn and not to be insulted.

I think we would all appreciate it if you contributed without any personal insults. You have your opinion and others here don't need to be denegrated for voicing theirs.

Especially when it comes from actual listening.
 
It is laughable when a comment is made trying to twist the facts to fit a point.

If you feel the need to address someone insulting others, try her post calling people spending large sums of money on audio gear, morons.
 
Maybe but she didn't personally hurl an insult at you did she? It would have been just as easy to state your points without being insulting to her personally. I do feel the need because I don't want this thread, which I think has some great information and might yield a lot more to be shut down because we have descended into name calling and offense.

So can we please stop?
 
Twisting the facts and calling people morons for spending certain amounts of money is insulting to me and I know it was to another member in this thread because they told me so. I would think there are others as well.

Of course, there is older gear that stands the test of time just as there is newer gear which is better.
 
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. You're homing in on one small, albeit strong opinion and invalidating a very informative post. She think someone that buys things by just looking at the bright and shiny and the price tag are morons. I wouldn't say they are morons. Uninformed? Yes. Vain? Probably. Are 5-figure items at a level where they ALL sound good and really it's just a difference of tone that counts? Absolutely. Are there people out there with more money than brains who buy stuff just to show it off? You bet there are. I truly believe that's the "moron" to which she was referring. Not the guy that has the scratch and does not give a shit what we think and will buy whatever he wants and have it gold-plated to boot.

I think we've beat this horse sufficiently don't you? Get one more lick in on the carcass and let's get back to audio shall we?
 
Sorry if this may have been posted already MannyE but I'm wondering what exactly is the older gear that you are running that you think is capable of staying with today's best? I need a few of those magical components as my humble rig falls noticeably short in a comparison to a quality modern system.
 
My two cents: I my 50 years on the planet I have rarely found new = better just different and cheaper to make and specs have never meant a thing to me as you can measure what you want in most instances. I for one can only hear to 12K and have some loss in hearing around 4k due to working on stuff all my life so I like bright speakers that some would find offensive. I just got my old Allison speakers fixed up and they are wonderful to me, I mean really, a speaker can be made into rocket science but it isn't as it just moves air. I am certain that I am not alone in knowing that my stuff would stand up to something technically better as I couldn't hear it anyway.

Specs to many including myself is just a way to justify price and means little in the real world which is why so many people like older gear as to them it sounds better regardless of what a spec sheet says. Just saying
 
Sorry if this may have been posted already MannyE but I'm wondering what exactly is the older gear that you are running that you think is capable of staying with today's best? I need a few of those magical components as my humble rig falls noticeably short in a comparison to a quality modern system.

Motor, (can I call you motor? :). ) That was the whole purpose. I would like that question answered. I do think it's possible. Here's a big reason why:


If Acoustic Research, for example, claims to have been able to reproduce the sound of a live musician so well that the audience in an auditorium could not tell the difference between the live performance and the playback of that performance (watch the interview of AR founder here:
) in the late 1950's using a professional ampex R2R and Halfler (please correct me if I'm wrong...I think he said that Halfler was working with them) amplifiers putting out 60 watts per channel and the famous AR3 speakers, then for crying out loud, why couldn't most high end equipment that's been well serviced and maintained, no matter how old, keep up?

Sorry for that crazy run-on sentence.

I'm going to put my money where my mouth is, in the name of science, by restoring a Yamaha CR 2020 and a pair of Yamaha NS 690ii speakers which will then do battle against a similarly priced receiver and speaker combo that's brand new. Keeping in mind that I'm going to adjust the original list price of both receiver and speakers to 2017 prices and use comparable equipment (can someone please tell me what the list prices of these things was 40 years ago?), I think it will be an interesting experiment. They are both just under the TOTL components of that time. The CR 3020 and NS 1000 being top of the heap, are a little (lot) over my budget at the moment.

By the time I finish restoring the CR 2020 I'll probably have close to $1000 if not a little more into it including all the crazy shipping costs. I don't think it's accurate to not represent the total cost of acquiring a component, and in the case of vintage, often that includes many hundreds of dollars in shipping. I'm also going to calculate the amount of time it takes to finally get everything completed. Because one of the advantages of modern equipment is one call/visit to the store and you're done.

My engineer friend is going to cobble up an A/B switch so whatever source component we use can be switched on the fly (researching the safety issues, I don't want to blow up my freshly restored Yammy OR the expensive new challenger). It should be fun and revealing.
 
Rather than the A/B switch thing, which usually adds noise to the signal anyway try this method as it is more revealing of the differences. Listen to system A for a week taking notes of not only the basic sound/tone but also the placement, depth, height, width and tactical feel. Put the notes away, then listen to system B for a week taking the same notes. Compare after all is said and done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom