• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Vintage SS v Modern SS - Blind Test!

davidro

davidro

Lunatic Member
G'day all.

Having heard so much about the great phono stage of NAD 3020, I've got myself a NAD 3120 (obviously bought secondhand. inside was caked with decades of dust).

I deoxited the NAD and took off some dust.

I then compared its phono stage with that of my existing bought-new Marantz PM 5003. Both no high-end by any means, however I'd expected some superior difference from the NAD due to its legendary status in light of below-average reviews the Marantz got.

Well, initially I thought the NAD was better by a small margin however I was wondering if it was just some placebo effect. I kind of believe all amps are pretty much the same, hence the doubts due to placebo effect.

I've converted some vinyl sound into a digital format, thinking some of you might be able offer some test results. I'd appreciate your input.

I normally listen to music via speakers. For this thing I used headphone which taught me that I need to re-adjust overhang & stylus pressure! Not to mention the vinyl I played was a very worn Aussie pressed disc (great music but!). So please bear with the bad sound quality. This is more about the difference between 2 different amps.

Test A

Test B

As per Jef182's input, I would like to point out to other people that Sample A actually is a little louder than sample B.

So apologies to any potential (and past of course) participants and would ask you to play B a little louder - say about 7-10% as Jef suggested.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
Thanks for those audio files. I really liked "A" better, the sound of the bass viol was georgous and clean. On "B" I had a sense of loss of involvement and the bass seemed to have a hump that muddied the sound. Good luck, I'd like to know what the others found. NICE test idea, with a good musical selection.
 
There's always one guy that swims against the current- that guy is usually me :)

After listening a few times I could tell that the signal volume was lower on "B". Initially "A" sounded better in some sections, but I also heard some clipping. (My little tube amp and headphones are very good at revealing distortion and clipping ;)

So-

I opened up my little audio editing software for a closer look. First off I normalized them so that they would be at comparable volume levels and found a lot of improvement in the "B" sample afterward. (It was perhaps 10% lower than "A" initially)

I would have called B "better" at that point. More revealing, more engaging, basically more music there to be heard.

A closer examination of the waveforms, with both samples side by side I discovered your "A" sample has flatter peaks, more gradual slopes and quite a bit of clipping at around 2:30. Overall I would call this a device with slower response than "B".

B's highs are steeper, sharper and higher, lows are lower.

I'd have to say that post-normalization that "B" was more accurate, dynamic and had greater frequency response than "A".

Sounded better to me as well.
 
They sound eerily similar, very hard to tell. I think I preferred B, seemed a touch more 'real' in timbre but it was very slight, and could have just been in my head.
 
jef182 said:
After listening a few times I could tell that the signal volume was lower on "B". Initially "A" sounded better in some sections, but I also heard some clipping. (My little tube amp and headphones are very good at revealing distortion and clipping ;)

So-

I opened up my little audio editing software for a closer look. First off I normalized them so that they would be at comparable volume levels and found a lot of improvement in the "B" sample afterward. (It was perhaps 10% lower than "A" initially)

I would have called B "better" at that point. More revealing, more engaging, basically more music there to be heard.

A closer examination of the waveforms, with both samples side by side I discovered your "A" sample has flatter peaks, more gradual slopes and quite a bit of clipping at around 2:30. Overall I would call this a device with slower response than "B".

B's highs are steeper, sharper and higher, lows are lower.

I'd have to say that post-normalization that "B" was more accurate, dynamic and had greater frequency response than "A".

Sounded better to me as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your very thoughtful comments.

I would like to point out to other people that Sample A actually is a little louder than sample B.

I've only realised it after a while but didn't have a chance to fix it - and I'm kind of just started to make use of Goldwave software.

So apologies to any potential (and past of course) participants and would ask you to play B a little louder - say about 7-10% as Jef suggested.

Jef - so which sample does your human ear like more? :scratch2:

Rob, Johnda & JohnVF - thanks for your inputs. Johnda I'm glad you appreciated the music. It's Du Pre playing Elgar Cello Concerto.

Cheers everyone.
 
I like "A" better, cleaner low notes.

However, you are comparing a NAD 3120 which was produced at least 23 years ago (from 1984 to 1987 if I am not mistaking) to a Marantz that came out in 2008 or so. So the results of this survey will only point out which is the better of these two units only under their current conditions. To be fair, the NAD should be tested, upgraded (i.e. capacitors) if needed and adjusted to meet its original specifications. It may not change the ranking, but it would be appropriate if you want to compare model for model rather than unit for unit.

Richard
 
listening thru my iMac's internal speaker system, I preferred sample A...sounded more natural, like what I have heard of cellos in real life.
 
davidro said:
Jef - so which sample does your human ear like more? :scratch2:

Rob, Johnda & JohnVF - thanks for your inputs. Johnda I'm glad you appreciated the music. It's Du Pre playing Elgar Cello Concerto.

Cheers everyone.
Click to expand...

David- after "B" was brought up to the same level I liked it better. (With the caveat that I'd like to hear them both normalized so that neither clips at 2:30 and 7:00 ;)
 
Regardless of what each was, I really enjoyed the music and intend to pick it up if I can find it. Excellent choice for the test...simple in parts, dynamic in parts, with unamplified instruments to judge timbre by. You even made me dig out my headphones, which I used for the test, and I forgot how much I like them (Audio technica ATH-ad700). If the whole thing wasn't running through the crappy headphone section of my Mac I may have a different conclusion, which is one thing that is hard about these tests....the many variables.
 
RMCCan said:
I like "A" better, cleaner low notes.

However, you are comparing a NAD 3120 which was produced at least 23 years ago (from 1984 to 1987 if I am not mistaking) to a Marantz that came out in 2008 or so. So the results of this survey will only point out which is the better of these two units only under their current conditions. To be fair, the NAD should be tested, upgraded (i.e. capacitors) if needed and adjusted to meet its original specifications. It may not change the ranking, but it would be appropriate if you want to compare model for model rather than unit for unit.

Richard
Click to expand...

Thanks for your valuable comments. I do appreciate the age difference and the NAD probably is rusty esp having been under a cake of dust over the decades. I think I made that clear in my initial post.

One thing that makes this comparison fair would be that the NAD enjoyed, and enjoys, rave reviews both from experts & users whilst the Marantz is like, 3/5 stars even in its price range (which is lowest by the industry standard).

Plus that's what makes this thread interesting I hope - will the vintage prove itself despite the harsh years it's gone through? And some ppl claim that's what makes the vintages 'better' than the current products.

At the end of the day it's just all about the fun and curiosity! I'm not here to offend anyone's pride or esteem. Just good fun.

Cheers.
 
davidro said:
Thanks for your valuable comments. I do appreciate the age difference and the NAD probably is rusty esp having been under a cake of dust over the decades. I think I made that clear in my initial post.

One thing that makes this comparison fair would be that the NAD enjoyed, and enjoys, rave reviews both from experts & users whilst the Marantz is like, 3/5 stars even in its price range (which is lowest by the industry standard).

Plus that's what makes this thread interesting I hope - will the vintage prove itself despite the harsh years it's gone through? And some ppl claim that's what makes the vintages 'better' than the current products.

At the end of the day it's just all about the fun and curiosity! I'm not here to offend anyone's pride or esteem. Just good fun.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

Point well taken. Thank you.

Richard
 
Could tell hardly any difference if any. Played back 'n forth on two different media players at the same time. SB Audigy, Yamaha R-9, Mirage FRx1 speakers.
 
this is a great idea!

too late for me to fire up the ripping system but will give it a shot tomorrow. i have a real good soundcard on it with a crown d60 and jbl monitors.
 
JohnVF said:
Regardless of what each was, I really enjoyed the music and intend to pick it up if I can find it. Excellent choice for the test...simple in parts, dynamic in parts, with unamplified instruments to judge timbre by. You even made me dig out my headphones, which I used for the test, and I forgot how much I like them (Audio technica ATH-ad700). If the whole thing wasn't running through the crappy headphone section of my Mac I may have a different conclusion, which is one thing that is hard about these tests....the many variables.
Click to expand...

V glad you liked the music as that's all about all we're doing here! Do find this disc. Cheers. :thmbsp:
 
They both sounded good except the low end hum on both. Sounded like feedback on the TT to me. Seemed alittle worse on recording A. Without that I could probably tell better.

This was played through an Asus Xonar card, going to an Aric Audio single tube pre amp. This is feeding a 75 watt Allison 8 inch ported sub and a pair of speakers I made. Each speaker has a Dayton amp with 52 watts going to a Peerless 5 1/4 inch woofer and 26 watts going to a Beston ribbon tweeter. There is a Solen 6.8 cap on the tweet.
 
The results

Hello, since there haven't been any further responses, I'm announcing the results. I have had responses from my colleagues and another overseas forum. The samples count only 16 however you may find the results interesting.

First of all, sample A is the NAD 3120 and B is the Marantz PM5003.

Out of 16 responses, 10 people liked the NAD and only 3 people liked the Marantz. 3 people weren't sure and couldn't tell much difference. You might appreciate A was a bit louder which is my stuff-up and we know the volume is v important in this kind of thing!

An interesting thing is that only about 4 people were quite confident and descriptive about their preference.

I find these 2 comments very interesting:

After listening a few times I could tell that the signal volume was lower on "B". Initially "A" sounded better in some sections, but I also heard some clipping. (My little tube amp and headphones are very good at revealing distortion and clipping

So-

I opened up my little audio editing software for a closer look. First off I normalized them so that they would be at comparable volume levels and found a lot of improvement in the "B" sample afterward. (It was perhaps 10% lower than "A" initially)

I would have called B "better" at that point. More revealing, more engaging, basically more music there to be heard.

A closer examination of the waveforms, with both samples side by side I discovered your "A" sample has flatter peaks, more gradual slopes and quite a bit of clipping at around 2:30. Overall I would call this a device with slower response than "B".

B's highs are steeper, sharper and higher, lows are lower.

I'd have to say that post-normalization that "B" was more accurate, dynamic and had greater frequency response than "A".

Sounded better to me as well.
Click to expand...

Interestingly a colleague of mine made this comment:

Trying to put all the white noise, volume etc aside, I think they are pretty similar... although I can tell the difference at around 2:16 when the soloist plays with the moving base. I think Test A sounds better than Test B in that it the 2 blended in better. 2:16 in Test B just sounded like the melody was not loud enough for the base and the tones are different? not sure if Im just nit picking here.
Click to expand...

And here goes my translation from another overseas forum:

If you ask me which recording I'd buy I'd choose A. A expressed the mid & low ranges better. The frequency for the Cello sound was more realistic in A whilst in B cello sounded a bit of violin . A had good balance and well-centred whilst B sounded 'thin'. I'd say A sound was closer to 'the natural sound'.
Click to expand...

Both commentators made reference to my poor recording :D

What can we make out of the results? Personally I like the NAD's name & look (very, very important) but I can't dismiss the Marantz as it generates no thumps and I can use it with a remote!

The NAD keeps telling me I'd have to change a few capacitors in it (I understand some people find this a joy) whilst the Marantz is so far carefree.

Sound-wise the difference between these 2 is rather marginal unless your listening experience on a daily basis is that of a recording engineer IMO.

Thanks for all your inputs. Hope this little test tells you something about your future shopping.

Cheers
 
This is the outcome I would have predicted. Among vintage ppl. who seek "warm" reproduction- seems a slightly narrower envelope seems to go over well.

I hadn't heard of the NAD's phono-stage- so I Googled it and found a statement very consistent with my visual observations:

Overall dynamics
The 3020 owes a lot of its fame to its stunning dynamic capabilities: yes, it is a 20 watter but it can drive even the most difficult loudspeaker with ease...it can sound very loud and you wouldn't believe it's such a cheap and old amp.
Despite these very good macro-dynamics capabilities, the NAD 3020 is a bit lazy with micro-dynamics that is to say those tiny, crisp musical variations that don't require plenty of power but a very agile performance.​

I said "A closer examination of the waveforms, with both samples side by side I discovered your "A" (NAD) sample has flatter peaks, more gradual slopes [...] Overall I would call this a device with slower response than "B".

B's (Marantz) highs are steeper, sharper and higher, lows are lower."

I'd say that this statement- plus the fact that my observations were indeed -tiny- variations over no more than thousandths of a second- would indicate that your NAD is preforming pretty much "as designed".

I'd be surprised if any radical surgery would improve it much- but if you do I'd love a look at the before and after :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom