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.