Why does vintage hifi sound so good ?

It would be tempting to say that the signal that goes into a fine old vintage receive emerges smoothed over, flattened out and serving up the warm sound. Like a soggy buttered up syrup soaked pancake hot off the griddle. But I don't think that's the case.
I've recently landed on a vintage speaker (Crown C-8) that can do a decent job of music reproduction, after a long string of the "little darling" also rans. As a result some of these old receivers are finally putting out something to wax poetic about. In spite of having they're own "personality" they can really bring it. Maybe that's the attraction.
I was losing hope for a while. In old receivers and speakers. But no, I was wrong.
What I'm saying is if you have doubts about your old receiver you should look at your speakers, old or new. Before you toss your collectable.
And if you want to use old speakers don't pass on the Crown C-8

PC050001.JPG
 
Last edited:
Do you mean that a vintage amplifier at $500 used sounds better than a $500 new Marantz?

Yes, i don't think it's easy to find a new $500 amp that sounds as good as a vintage amp in perfect working condition for $500 (you of course have to look for the best amp for $500 not just someting random)

Could also be a perfect nad 3020a (something that works and all you have to do is use it, not repair it) try to find something new that sounds better and also have a phonostage for the same price $200-250 or less Onkyo A-9010?
 
Let's see.....my sx950 was around 600 in 1978. My Emotiva pt-100/a300 combo was 600 in 2017. The cool factor goes to the pioneer but the Emotiva CRUSHES it in sound quality. I love my SX and will likely keep it to the last note I listen to but vintage audio is a niche hobby and unless you are a tech or know one you will be cussin more than listening. I found 3 vintage units last month and they all need to go to the hospital:biggrin:


It's used and new the same price, i say it's hard to find someting new as good as vintage amp for the same price, not what the vintage amp costs when it was new.

Try $200 for a vintage and a new amp, that might get you a vintage amp that cost $600 when it was new :rolleyes:
 
Yeah, for it to be a fair comparison, you need to find an amp that as $500 brand new out of the box already adjusted for inflation, and then a $500 new amplifier. S9 although you might pay more like $50-150 for the vintage one, it was the same price new.
If I was given $500, I’d definitely get an older amplifier, just because it has better value (it won’t depreciate anymore, and I’m getting more for the money) unless I get a deal on something like the Marants PM7008 or something.
 
Others have listed the number of duties modern gear is required to perform, but here's one other thought...

Back in the 60s to 70s, TV was over the air (cable not even in the picture yet, let alone modern streaming, DVRs...), mainly black and white (though color soon took over), video tapes were just coming on-line (in different formats...which one to pick as you knew that both wouldn't survive), phones were mainly rotary dial (though touchtone would soon follow, yet you were still tied to the wall via a cord), there was no internet, computers were very basic IF you even had access to one, no video games til the late 70s with "Pong". For portable music you had either a small transistor radio (usually mono with a bulky earpiece) or a fairly large "boom-box" that you carried on your shoulder til you had to rest... And then there was home audio... AM/FM, vinyl, reel-to-reel, cassette tape, 8-track (laser discs, CDs, DVDs didn't exist).

So, for entertainment, you either created your own (think board games), went to live performances, movie theaters, or dealt with the above limits on in-home entertainment. Since going to performances, etc were one time expenses, and a home stereo could be enjoyed over the course of years, a lot of money and research went into the basic reproduction of sound. Convenience features were an afterthought. Most pieces didn't even have remote control (though there were a few with cabled remotes). The whole process was part of the listening experience from setting up the gear to keeping it clean and shiny, cleaning the album (needle, tape heads, etc.), flipping the album after side 1, looking at the album art...

If it didn't sound good, people wouldn't buy it if they had the money for better. You'd save up to get stereo equipment like many today save up to buy a car or home.

Today, convenience and features trump sound quality most of the time for mass-market consumer gear. That's not saying that there ISN'T modern gear specifically made for audio quality in a "home stereo" environment. There definitely is. You just have to search for it more (and pay a premium) as it's a case of supply and demand. The majority of people aren't setting up home "stereos" today. Home theater or maximum portability is the rule of the day in general.
 
Marantz PM7005 or SR7008

If it's the surround amp, why consider something like that for stereo vs a vintage amp from the 70's or older
 
A note to the laserdisc it was actually started i 1970's and first released December 11, 1978 almost 40 years old
 
Your profile says it all.
At 43 years old, it's in your DNA, because Mama was grooving to a fine (not vintage at the time) Marantz, Kenwood, Pioneer, while you were in the womb.
 
no scandyna 2400, much later Philips 22 A H 305, mabye a philips 777 or 877 turntable and a beovox s 45
 
Fixed the thread title to make everyone happy.

Why does {ANY PIECE OF AUDIO GEAR} sound so good ?

Answer: Because the listener likes the sound. If the listener likes his entry level AVR and his earbuds, so be it.
 
JHeu02 is on to something - market forces.

The 70s saw electronics technology be able to deliver quality sound reproduction at a reasonable cost. There was a market opening for home entertainment and manufacturers scrambled in a competitive fight to win customers' money with sound quality and features.

Those same mass market consumers today devote fewer dollars to one of many home entertainment choices. Most people put more money into home theatre than into home music reproduction. So mass market music stuff has to be more cost-competitive.

Plus modern pop music suffers from a lack of artistic creativity, i.e. it sux, so why bother about sound quality? Compare Dua Lupa versus Janis Joplin. Both female screamers but which is the greater artist? Or some of the whinny male singer-songwriters versus Bob Dylan?

My McIntosh MA6200 integrated amp circa 1978 sounds better than my brand new Sony TA-A1ES from 2016. The later has better technical proficiency, I'm sure, but the Mac delivers more music.
 
It's used and new the same price, i say it's hard to find someting new as good as vintage amp for the same price, not what the vintage amp costs when it was new.

Try $200 for a vintage and a new amp, that might get you a vintage amp that cost $600 when it was new :rolleyes:

Thank you helper. The point I was trying to make was a $600.00 receiver in 1978 was 2300.00 in today's money. So in other words I get much better sound for 600.00 in today's money...if I spent 2300.00 it would be even better. Happy holidays
 
Answer: Because the listener likes the sound. If the listener likes his entry level AVR and his earbuds, so be it.

True.

At the same time, a used high end AVR that sells for far far less than any vintage Sansui amp does will sound and perform better if set up correctly in 2 channel mode. Different strokes for different folks.
 
Thank you helper. The point I was trying to make was a $600.00 receiver in 1978 was 2300.00 in today's money. So in other words I get much better sound for 600.00 in today's money...if I spent 2300.00 it would be even better. Happy holidays



For 200 you can get a heavy vintage amp (10kg +) with really good bass,input for mm/mc cartridges and lot's of power not to forget the most important thing, good sound, often they also look really good. You can't get that in a new amp for the same money
 
Last edited:
Vintage 1985 or older for Amplifiers = More for your money and more powerful warm sound.

Vintage 1978 Receivers or older = Better everything.

There's many great sounding speakers from today and 40 , 50, 60 years ago and many from back then can't be beat unless you have Deep Pockets for those made today that are at or near the level of many of the Greats from the past.
And besides for a small investment in crossover refreshments & refoam in them oldie but goodie speakers you can be at or near the level of today's best speakers.

Today's market is very Expensive to play in and yesterday's market didn't demand so much of your dollars for great Equipment.
 
1978-1984 blend...

hf-speaker-gear-patrol-23.jpg
 
Work Ethic was a reason people took pride in having a job, doing the job well and so on and that was from the bottom up. Yea they were built to last not throw away too. Sure companies were about making money but they still had the character to interact with the buyer. Those are the type of facts that I think of when I look at the audio equipment I own from 50-60-70 years ago. It is just a gut feeling that I have. I will not write a report on it but if you lived thru those times you know what it was like. There was a carry over effect is what I am saying. And it did not remain with just audio it was just about everything.

Now people are just so damn smart.

Canton
 
Back in the old days they also in many different jobs used materials they are not allowed to use today in 2018.

I think that is also something that makes a difference, they could use material that sounded good (and made an amp heavy), now in 2018 im shure theres more restrictions in what they can use.
 
Back
Top Bottom