• Check out the Annual AK Secret Santa exchange Program, signup before November 23rd in the AK Charities & Christmas forum!

Why nice interconnects? internal wiring often low quality.

Bigerik said:
Cept you can't buy anything like a 66 GTO today. Cars today are infinitely better equipped and more high tech, while you still can buy a basically similar two channel amp.
Click to expand...

ya, but you cannot buy a 2ch receiver that is hand assembled with parts that cost over an order of magnitude MORE to buy then, as they are now.

besides, in 1978 there were $5000 units as well. you cannot chain 'constant dollars' from 78 to '12 in regards to audio equipment. remember the whole thread about a moores law like application for all electronics?
 
quaddriver said:
by that logic a 66 GTO is how much?
Click to expand...

What's wrong with that logic? People allocated a chunk of their disposable income to audio gear, or cars, or whatever. The value it represented to them could be viewed in terms of how painful it was to purchase. So why not compare against something that would represent a similar investment today?

I guess another way to look at it would be that the Pioneer was one of the most powerful and TOTL pieces of consumer gear in its day. I don't think the Yamaha they used is quite at the same level by today's standards, though the market is so different now... I'm not sure there's any consumer gear made to the same level of quality because audio just isn't as important to most folks as it once was.

Regarding the question about the GTO... it was around $3000 in '66, which equates to $19931 in 2010 dollars (first inflation calculator I found). Seems reasonable to me. Ought to be a good comparison with an American car costing $20 grand. The modern car will probably eat its lunch in every category except nostalgia and *maybe* fun to drive.
 
I'd put my modern Pioneer Elite SC-27 against an SX-1980 in 2-channel anyday, blind or sighted. The preamp section sounds that much better (assuming the SX has a similar sound to the SX-1280 I had).

As for comparing dollar amounts, you're right. Its not that easy. The SX-1980 was made in a time when thousands of units were sold, and thus scale was much different. The economies of scale would be such that the SX-1980 would cost even more to make today, than the adjusted for inflation figure represents, because the market is smaller. A lot of the metals used in the thing also have increased in price relative to inflation.

Ok, now I'm gone. I have a bar to go to.
 
JohnVF said:
I'd put my modern Pioneer Elite SC-27 against an SX-1980 in 2-channel anyday, blind or sighted. The preamp section sounds that much better (assuming the SX has a similar sound to the SX-1280 I had).

As for comparing dollar amounts, you're right. Its not that easy. The SX-1980 was made in a time when thousands of units were sold, and thus scale was much different. The economies of scale would be such that the SX-1980 would cost even more to make today, than the adjusted for inflation figure represents, because the market is smaller. A lot of the metals used in the thing also have increased in price relative to inflation.

Ok, now I'm gone. I have a bar to go to.
Click to expand...


I'm with many of you (finaly) Due to being half "layed-up" here in a week or so, I had to do some modernizing in my system, in other words obtain something new, that utilized a remote, so I can still enjoy my music. Now, I am Not saying or implying that this unit is top of the line, or anything of that sort, but, back in the 70's (and guys, I grew up in, and LOVE the 70's :beatnik: "where" for slightly over $100 dollars could one get a 100wpc 20-20k hz rated reciever with a discreet amp output stage ....brand new..... Well, you couldn't. I haven't had time to "really" sit and audition yet, but thus far, I am noticing no sonic "deprevities" over the vintage HK unit it is temporarily replacing , which cost Many time's the new unit's price. Just politely relating:yes:
 
quaddriver said:
here you go:

http://www.iavscanada.com/Articles/art_receiver_shootout.htm

I see nothing flawed with this test. And dont let the naysays distract you with claims of yahama HT machines. It was in 2ch direct mode - something every yammie I have seen since Yamaha BPC 'natural sound' came about and they do it WELL. very well indeed.
Click to expand...

Quad I appreciate the link, thanks. Seems that it was well done and I would suspect the results would be valid.
He doesnt mention how many took the test, though and mentions all but 2 preferred the Pioneer. 2 of 3? 2 of 30? I guess we'll never know.
I wonder how the Pioneer would stack up against my 1979 Yamaha R-2000 which I think would be a better unit that the HT Yamaha he tested. I really like my Yammy, although it never sees my main rig because of the other amps I have that I like a lot more.
 
quaddriver said:
I agree, but to address an earlier post, and this brings up a discussion I had a few weeks back in a car while it was precipitating.

We talked about ice forming. I said: 'water has no choice, >32 water, <32 ice. =32 transitional crystal forming.'

Knowing the science of WHY something works is in fact the curriculum for engineering.
Click to expand...

As with most absolutes, your water/ice example isn't absolutely accurate. Water can be supercooled to less than 32° F and not turn to ice. Water, it seems, has a choice.

Pure water normally freezes at 273.15 K (0 °C or 32 °F) but it can also be "supercooled" at standard pressure down to its crystal homogeneous nucleation at almost 224.8 K (−48.3 °C/−55 °F)
Click to expand...
 
whoaru99 said:
2 of 8 or 6 of 8, depending on which way you want to go.
Click to expand...

So 25% picked "Not Pioneer."
Was that in the article?
Did both guys pick the same "other"?

As I said above, the test was pretty well done IMO. Shows that 75% of those who were tested preferred the Pioneer over those other 2 receivers. Probably a decent receiver, considering the competition.

That and a buck... :D
 
"Perhaps most important, Innovative Audio has plenty of enthusiastic customers who were willing to participate in the test and eager to find out how the vintage stuff stacks up against today's state of the art."

That ugly black receiver was not today's state of the art. I really hope you guys don't believe that. You guys would be up in arms if somebody compared a modern separates system against a midlevel Yamaha CR-640 and declared once and for all that the issue is settled. That's basically what this test does. All that it suggests is that a mid level modern receiver is outclassed by TOTL vintage. That's it. And its not surprising, and has been accepted wisdom in the hobby for as long as I've been in it.
 
I'm not too surprised the Pioneer 1980 did so well against the AVR or Sony Reciever. That was pioneers best effort reciever back then. The tecnology to produce supurb high end amps has been around before those unit's were made by anybody with the engineering expertise to use it. I don't understand people that think newer amps have any better sound than the old ones due to advanced Tecnology. Smaller (Class D amps w/switching power supplies) and cheaper to build yes. Not better sound quality. I've alway's liked Vintage Pioneer, It always sounded good to my ears, even their mid level unit's. I've seen model's in many other brands that are impresive too, including the less popular Nikko and Tanburg brands.
 
Last edited:
charles 1973 said:
I'm not too surprised the Pioneer 1980 did so well against the AVR or Sony Reciever. That was pioneers best effort reciever back then. The tecnology to produce supurb high end amps has been around before those unit's were made by anybody with the engineering expertise to use it. I don't understand people that think newer amps have any better sound than the old ones due to advanced Tecnology. Smaller (Class D amps w/switching power supplies) and cheaper to build yes. Not better sound quality.
Click to expand...

Most of my opinion on new vs old is in the implementation of the technology, and not some radical change I see in new gear. For example, the last thing I'd ever want in one of my systems is the preamp section of the SX-1980. It is of a time, and place, and of that time and place's taste in gear. Mine doesn't mirror that, so I tend to gravitate towards something more minimal, and the better examples of that, in my experience, have been in the '90s onward. I run two preamps from the 90s, a passive from McCormack and a really nice active one from Klyne with a fantastic phono stage- I imagine that I would probably like either mated to the SX-1980s amp section, more than I would like the SX-1980 as a whole. Its not always about moving the ball via technology- trends can dictate sounds. And the best examples of those trends that I find, are newer.
 
JohnVF said:
All that it suggests is that a mid level modern receiver is outclassed by TOTL vintage. That's it. And its not surprising, and has been accepted wisdom in the hobby for as long as I've been in it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and for all the reverence for blind tests and the like, their conclusion is amazing - just as everyone who seems to argue against cables claims, they pretty much found what they were looking for:

"Just think: Lurking at a garage sale, a swap meet or a vintage audio dealer near you may be the best receiver you'll ever own, at a price far less than what you'd pay for the top components of today. And just think of the giant arm muscles you'll develop lifting the Pioneer, and the fit, toned legs you'll get walking up to adjust the volume instead of using a remote control!"
Click to expand...

I'm all for tests and measurements, but just a little bit of rhetorical analysis here points to how this essay and this test might be skewed by its author..."Canada's Largest Vintage Audio Emporium."

That said, I'd love to see a more balanced kind of test. I'm curious about this whole issue, and will be doing the test myself with some new cables soon.
 
Echoes Myron said:
Yeah, and for all the reverence for blind tests and the like, their conclusion is amazing - just as everyone who seems to argue against cables claims, they pretty much found what they were looking for:



I'm all for tests and measurements, but just a little bit of rhetorical analysis here points to how this essay and this test might be skewed by its author..."Canada's Largest Vintage Audio Emporium."

That said, I'd love to see a more balanced kind of test. I'm curious about this whole issue, and will be doing the test myself with some new cables soon.
Click to expand...
Shhh...we're not allowed to talk about bias because it came out positive for the vintage gear.
 
JohnVF said:
Shhh...we're not allowed to talk about bias because it came out positive for the vintage gear.
Click to expand...

I'll freely admit to my bias towards vintage gear for the value and aesthetic it represents. I admit that I might be swayed in a non-blind test towards the vintage gear, however I have no doubt whatsoever that modern gear is fully capable of matching or exceeding the sonic qualities of vintage gear.

I'd like to participate in blind test comparisons of gear that make more sense than the one in the article.
 
JonL said:
I'd like to participate in blind test comparisons of gear that make more sense than the one in the article.
Click to expand...

It's sorta a lot of work and really not that much fun, IMO, if it's done with/for serious purpose rather than a quasi-test over a few beers.
 
whoaru99 said:
It's sorta a lot of work and really not that much fun, IMO, if it's done with/for serious purpose rather than a quasi-test over a few beers.
Click to expand...

That's one thing that's always intrigued me, how many people play that "double blind test" card vs how many people have ever actually gone through all the hassle to really do it - properly. Just doing a gear swap and trying to remember
what you heard before is a PITA, a proper "double blind test" is a lot rarer bird I'll wager.
 
sebrof said:
Quad I appreciate the link, thanks. Seems that it was well done and I would suspect the results would be valid.
He doesnt mention how many took the test, though and mentions all but 2 preferred the Pioneer. 2 of 3? 2 of 30? I guess we'll never know.
I wonder how the Pioneer would stack up against my 1979 Yamaha R-2000 which I think would be a better unit that the HT Yamaha he tested. I really like my Yammy, although it never sees my main rig because of the other amps I have that I like a lot more.
Click to expand...

The yammie he tested in that test was the TOTL HT machine for 2009 and like all receivers since 1985, had a direct mode which it was in. Like any horse race won by a nose, someone has to win. The yamaha ported itself very well as they are wont to do. In 2 channel mode, there is little difference from mid level to TOTL within their product line, including the new (as of 2010) models now.

Unlike everyone else, yamaha treats the machine as 2 separate entries, a 2ch stereo, and a 5-7ch HT unit. they invented HT with the DSP 1? in 1985 and have done such since. they not only made instruments, but designed studios and concert halls world wide and had detailed measurements of sound material that they were able to compare against their machines. Like I have said many times in many forums, the natural sound machines are the only ones that never 'lost the faith' for a continuous line of production - for consumer use. One can argue there has always been audiophile stuff (and of questionable value to boot), these machines have brought that sound to the common man.
 
It surely wouldn't be definitive, but maybe at an AKFest, some members could bring some interconnects to see if there are any noticeable results. Bring their old interconnects and their "upgraded" interconnects. And maybe the CD or media where they noticed the difference.

With the understanding it is just for fun. Just make sure you have both sides represented.

It doesn't have to be a complicated blind test. Keep it simple. Both sides are probably going to find fault with the procedures anyway - depending on the results. ;) Just see if a difference is noticed. Then tear the results apart if needed.

To me it would at least be more constructive and scientific than the debates that we have telling people that they can't possibly hear a difference because of the science.

To me science involves testing observation and evaluation with an open mind not just a battle of words and Internet links. :D
 
whoaru99 said:
But what you propose without controls really isn't a scientific test.
Click to expand...
I said it was for fun.

You can substitute a pair of regular RCA cables instead of changing out to the expensive connect as your Placebo or just not change out the cables during a supposed change out of cables. HIde everything behind a screen. A score card rating specific vocals, cymbals, instruments, clarity detail, imaging, soundstage. Identifying if they are in the hear a difference or not hear a difference camp. Or any other conditions some members may recommend.

You can argue that it doesn't have the controls you want. But you can recommend other conditions if you want. But hosts should draw the line if it gets too complicated.

It's just more scientific than the word brawls we have in that it involves hands on testing. The claims of science here pretty much discounts observations by others without knowing what others experience. How scientific is that?

What I'm proposing is a step beyond the usual banter.

Let's do something and let the chips fall where they may. It can be a fun attraction for the members.

You are no worse than where you started and you can incorporate other changes in the future.

There is not going to be an ideal testing situation except maybe in a audio lab. And as I said, you're not going to satisfy everyone. What I'm proposing is one step forward instead of the same business as usual.

What is at the basic issue is -- can we hear a difference?

Then trash ... erm ... analyze the results. :D

Besides, if you don't believe there is a difference, then it would seem the odds are in favor of not hearing a difference in most scenarios.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom