WSJ Article on Vintage Audio.

[OMGCat!]

I thought it odd that the thread pretty much opened with the horrors of hoarding. Maybe it really is that bad but I feel it was kind of out of place in an article about the fun of vintage gear.

They make far better. And yes, still hand assembled and soldered using better parts and far stiffer power supplies. Got 800 joules?

The performance envelope of a VTL Siegfried or Audio Research Reference 750SE is on a completely different level in terms of resolution and dynamics.

View attachment 1310197

View attachment 1310198

I’m not sure which models they were but I recently listened to a system with AR mono blocks (they had holographic power meters) and the dynamics were just amazing.
The control these amps have over bass frequencies is something that has to be experienced. The other frequencies as well but the bass was just on another level.

 

[just dave]

Some guys just can't stand it when vintage gear gets praised.Don't you have anything better to do than thread crap,well I guess not.

 

[bluesky]

Actually, they do:

......

Super fine !!!!!!!

Bet THAT cost some serious $$$.

Way beyond what I would ever pay for a stereo system. Bet it sounds outstanding.

 

[damacman]

The comments section appeared to be liberally salted with AKers

Hey, any place that can host the same ol’ arguments!

Tastes Great!

Less Filling!

 

[mech986]

Well right away that headline is trash.

Spending your 401k on audio gear would dumb as hell.

Lots of people have done dumb things with their 401K's including taking loans to buy stocks (or buying on margin) during stock bubbles, cashing out the 401K prematurely because they didn't think about the consequences, etc. etc. Unfortunately, you can't help people who want to make rash financial decisions.

I read the analog version of the WSJ article this morning with my coffee. My reading experience was "warmer" and more "authentic" than yours.

Yours was a palpable, physical experience, akin to handling a record or physically operating a tonearm or changing a tube. And paper always feels warmer. The ink residue is a problem though.

 

[RamblinE]

Lots of people have done dumb things with their 401K's including taking loans to buy stocks (or buying on margin) during stock bubbles, cashing out the 401K prematurely because they didn't think about the consequences, etc. etc. Unfortunately, you can't help people who want to make rash financial decisions.



Yours was a palpable, physical experience, akin to handling a record or physically operating a tonearm or changing a tube. And paper always feels warmer. The ink residue is a problem though.

I know somebody who paid for a wedding with their 401k. Like a really really nice wedding. My mother inlaw gave us $3k for our wedding. We made it work and our friends and family had a great time. I just don't get some of this stuff. I need a house y'all like wtf.

 

[Bodyblue]

I know somebody who paid for a wedding with their 401k. Like a really really nice wedding. My mother inlaw gave us $3k for our wedding. We made it work and our friends and family had a great time. I just don't get some of this stuff. I need a house y'all like wtf.

My cousin in Georgia got married at the UPS store.....true story. I find that to be the ultimate awesome "where I got married story".

 

[E-Stat]

I’m not sure which models they were but I recently listened to a system with AR mono blocks (they had holographic power meters) and the dynamics were just amazing. The control these amps have over bass frequencies is something that has to be experienced. The other frequencies as well but the bass was just on another level.

That would be the Reference 160M with its 900 joule power supply. By comparison, a McIntosh MC275 has 54.

 

[E-Stat]

yeah..so what does that cost?

At that level of performance, a bunch. I particularly enjoyed hearing Siegfrieds drive Scaena 1.4s.

 

[bruhl001]

Well right away that headline is trash.

Spending your 401k on audio gear would dumb as hell.

The goal of life is to be old and rich.

 

[Wildcat]

WSJ actually got an article on audio mostly right?? Incredible. (Their computer, technology and consumer audio articles decades ago were laughable.)

 

[Vintagear]

That would be the Reference 160M with its 900 joule power supply. By comparison, a McIntosh MC275 has 54.

View attachment 1311121

I see that you often bring up that measurement unit. I have a couple of questions about joules:

1) What good are all those joules if by ARs own admission using the 4 ohm tap on the Ref 160M with some speakers rated at 4 ohms (even easy to drive >90db speakers) makes the bass "become thicker, woollier, or out of control."

JAs final comments on the Ref 160M do not seem like a glowing endorsement.

"The Audio Research Reference 160M's measured performance appears to be affected by the design team's decision not to use a lot of loop negative feedback. It will offer relatively high levels of low-order harmonic distortion when the load impedance is less than the nominal output transformer tap. However, I suspect that the reason JVS found the REF 160M worked well with the low-impedance Wilson Alexia speakers is that they are very sensitive—I measured 91.2dB/2.83V/m—so he probably wasn't driving the amplifier anywhere near clipping, especially in Ultralinear mode."


2) How many joules do you need to run a modern high quality stand-mount speaker (min. impedance of 4.6 ohms & 88 dB sensitivity- recommended 50- 120W) in a 20' x 12' x 8' room?

Thanks

 

[tom67]

Yeah, good article....hope it doesn't scare anyone off. They mention the very high end. Actually, for a lot of people on AK and elsewhere it is a very reasonable sensible hobby where they buy or restore equipment for a cost less than new and a lot of really interesting gear really doesn't cost that much. You don't have to buy a Van Gogh to collect art....

 

[Bodyblue]

Yeah, good article....hope it doesn't scare anyone off. They mention the very high end. Actually, for a lot of people on AK and elsewhere it is a very reasonable sensible hobby where they buy or restore equipment for a cost less than new and a lot of really interesting gear really doesn't cost that much. You don't have to buy a Van Gogh to collect art....

Bingo! Exactly right!

Of course there will be the usual snob saying that if you dont but they Van Gogh they like, you are a putz.

 

[E-Stat]

1) What good are all those joules if by ARs own admission using the 4 ohm tap on the Ref 160M with some speakers rated at 4 ohms (even easy to drive >90db speakers) makes the bass "become thicker, woollier, or out of control."

Why use a mismatched tap? Gee, I'd use the one that works best.

"Every Audio Research amp we've used with every Wilson speaker we've made has sounded best on the 8 ohm tap, without exception."

Nominal impedance speaks nothing to any given speaker's frequency based curve. Courtesy of Stereophile, here's a great example. Don't know about you, but it seems to spend more of its time between 6-8 ohms:

1)JAs final comments on the Ref 160M do not seem like a glowing endorsement.

I guess that depends upon your perspective. As for me, I prefer the sound of amplifiers using little corrective feedback like that of Audio Research, Ayre, Pass Labs, VTL, etc.

12) How many joules do you need to run a modern high quality stand-mount speaker (min. impedance of 4.6 ohms & 88 dB sensitivity- recommended 50- 120W) in a 20' x 12' x 8' room?

Power supply stiffness is not a measure of power. It is indicative of resolving power and dynamic abilities. I first understood that by copying what Frank Van Alstine had done with a Dyna 400 back in the 70s. I boosted the capacitance in an Audire One from 20,000 uF to 80,000 uf along with beefing up the bridge. It immediately took on a more dynamic personality and improved transparency. The best sounding amps (and preamps for that matter) in my experience follow that strategy.

 

[Vintagear]

I guess that depends upon your perspective. As for me, I prefer the sound of amplifiers using little corrective feedback like that of Audio Research, Ayre, Pass Labs, VTL, etc.

Yeah, that's true. I'd take the Ayre without corrective feedback or the Benchmark AHB2 with corrective feedback any day of the week over the Ref 160M. That's my preference in sound signature. I do not want a unit with built in tone controls which is what the sound signature and measurements of the Ref 160M clearly tell us that it has.

Not to get sidetracked but were you aware that Charles Hansen of Ayre uses a vintage (god forbid!) circuit design (Diamond Differential) in his products because he says it "simply sounds better".

Power supply stiffness is not a measure of power. It is indicative of resolving power and dynamic abilities. I first understood that by copying what Frank Van Alstine had done with a Dyna 400 back in the 70s. I boosted the capacitance in an Audire One from 20,000 uF to 80,000 uf along with beefing up the bridge. It immediately took on a more dynamic personality and improved transparency. The best sounding amps (and preamps for that matter) in my experience follow that strategy.

I'm still not sure how to calculate it based on other known specs of an amplifier. What information would we need to do so?

Can you help me calculate it?

 

[E-Stat]

I do not want a unit with built in tone controls which is what the sound signature and measurements of the Ref 160M clearly tell us that it has.

Only when your speaker's impedance curve looks like Sterophile's roller coaster test load. Mine does not. I trust you're aware that Wilson frequently demonstrates its speakers using similarly behaving VTL tube amps. Here's the late David Wilson's living room where you'll find VTL Siegfrieds and Ayre MX-Rs (which also show a similar "tone control" variation using SP's test load)

Not to get sidetracked but were you aware that Charles Hansen of Ayre uses a vintage (god forbid!) circuit design (Diamond Differential) in his products because he says it "simply sounds better".

Good fundamental circuit design is "vintage". The modern world adds quieter, more linear parts, stiffer power supplies and balanced operation for improved higher transparency and dynamics.

I'm still not sure how to calculate it based on other known specs of an amplifier.

I know of no such *calculation*. I've always found more to be better. Perhaps now with the family ownership of ARC and McIntosh, you find the latter's latest products have far stiffer power supplies. Witness the MC611 and MC462.

 

[Vintagear]

Good fundamental circuit design is "vintage". Now add quieter, more linear parts with higher transparency and improved dynamics in the modern world.

I live in the NYC metropolitan area so it has been very easy for me audition most of the amps you mention and then some. I'm pretty sure you have never heard a restored AU-X1 with a passive volume control driving modern highly resolving speakers otherwise you wouldn't mention adding "quieter, more linear parts with higher transparency and improved dynamics". You would be amazed.

Also, let's be fair. Another thing to consider when making these comparisons is price point. For $30k it is a lot easier to provide joules to the consumer. The bean counters won't be as upset.

I know of no such *calculation*. I've always found more to be better.

Where did you get the joules rating of the two units above and four I saw you mention in another thread a few weeks ago? You must be doing a calculation, or were they published somewhere?

I still want to get to the bottom of this. How do I know the amount of energy an amp has if it's not a stated spec? You said, "I first understood that by copying what Frank Van Alstine had done with a Dyna 400 back in the 70s. I boosted the capacitance in an Audire One from 20,000 uF to 80,000 uf along with beefing up the bridge. It immediately took on a more dynamic personality and improved transparency."

I get that concept also and I agree, what I don't get is how to determine the joules. Of course more energy reserves is better, but how to I determine how many joules an amp has? I believe on the last thread you said you did a quick look at the schematic to come up with the joules (I may be wrong). Either way, you use the term a lot and I want to understand it better.

Seriously, I want to compare joules like you do, so is it a combination of filter capacitance? Transformer VA? Please elaborate. you planted a seed in my brain and now I need to get to the bottom of it.

 

[E-Stat]

I live in the NYC metropolitan area so it has been very easy for me audition most of the amps you mention and then some. I'm pretty sure you have never heard a restored AU-X1 with a passive volume control driving modern highly resolving speakers otherwise you wouldn't mention adding "quieter, more linear parts with higher transparency and improved dynamics". You would be amazed.

Sure I would. I have highly resolving speakers, too. System details can be found on my profile page via a link. I confess Sansui integrateds have not done much for me in the past.

IWhere did you getting the joules rating of the two units above and one I saw you mention a few weeks ago? Were they published somewhere?

Audio Research publishes theirs. I did the math on others.

II still want to get to the bottom of this. How do I know the amount of energy an amp has if it's not a stated spec?

You will need to know the rail voltage and capacitance where J=V*V*C (in farads)/2.

It appears the "flat amp", aka power amp in the AU-X1 runs 4400 uF on 68V rails for 10 joules.

 

[Vintagear]

Audio Research publishes theirs. I did the math on others.


You will need to know the rail voltage and capacitance where J=V*V*C (in farads)/2.

Now we're getting somewhere. You said you knew of no calculation, but that's what I wanted. The math, thanks

It appears the "flat amp", aka power amp in the AU-X1 runs 4400 uF on 68V rails for 10 joules.

The "flat amp" is not the power amp.