• Please note that Audiokarma will be offline briefly for updates early on Monday morning, September 28th.

Comparison between higher end vintage audio vs higher end modern audio

SoCal Sam said:
Sort of a detour but in line with the notion of surface taking a front seat to substance. Your music take is spot on. It wasn't too long ago when vocalist were pitch and timing perfect. Listen to any Seventies genre from rock to disco, vocalists were pitch perfect. There was no hiding behind the mixer. With today's processing, anyone can be made to sound pitch perfect. So, we get vocalists who are show people first and singers second. There are comparisons of very big pop stars singing in natural voice and then in studio. The difference is startling. The theory and suspicion is that Auto-Tune processing is a star enabler.
Click to expand...

The 1 good thing about vocal programs like auto tune is this ,the singers who are most apt to hide behind a vocal correction program are generally zipper head of the month ,most of us won't even know they came & went ,with the no talent zombies on MTV today I feel like Ozzy Osbourne when he said " what the hell is a Bieber " ,he didn't even know it was a person lmfao ,I feel like that when grandkids talk about their music .
 
My personal experience is with a restored Pioneer SX 1250 and Adcom GFP 750 and Classe Model 15 amp. Similar inflation based price and power output.

The Pioneer looked way cooler. It has a tuner.

The Adcom/ Classe combo just sounded more musical and effortless.

I sold the Pioneer and never looked back.

Tom
 
W9TR said:
My personal experience is with a restored Pioneer SX 1250 and Adcom GFP 750 and Classe Model 15 amp. Similar inflation based price and power output.

The Pioneer looked way cooler. It has a tuner.

The Adcom/ Classe combo just sounded more musical and effortless.

I sold the Pioneer and never looked back.

Tom
Click to expand...
Well ... you do know, you're comparison was a "Receiver" to "Separates??" Not exactly a "fair" comparison I would think?? Apples to Oranges as it were. :)
 
Now as far as comparing new and old, if it's good equipment and everything is functioning good. Sound quality with either should sound good but I would give low noise and distortion to new/newer equipment. However some people like the distortion of pretty old equipment and one of the reasons some gravitate to tubes.
 
Do not forget something important : the personnal pride. Back in the days, hifi was the sign of a social acomplishment, and the makers or people involved in it were thinking on a different level.

Not all, of course, but serious people in there were particulary devoted. The more the time went with run to profit and after many companies died or stopped hifi, it changed but they were pioneers of hifi and were more eager on trying new things, discovering new ones. It was a different time. Close and distant.
 
chip18sw said:
Well ... you do know, you're comparison was a "Receiver" to "Separates??" Not exactly a "fair" comparison I would think?? Apples to Oranges as it were. :)
Click to expand...
You could come to that conclusion and I think it’s a fair perspective.

There were no new monster receivers in 2000 and there are none today except for the big McIntosh, Hegel, and Gryphon units. Those blow the cost comparison out the window.

So inflated dollar for dollar I think it’s still a fair comparison, even though the SX 1250 was burdened by the cost of a tuner, the Adcom/Classe’ units were burdened by separate case work, etc

Point is, time and gear quality have moved on and to my ears even well restored vintage gear doesn’t hold up to the sound quality of inflation adjusted gear available today. Granted I am a sample of one and can only relate my personal experience.

If you compare 2019 used vintage dollar for new equipment dollar a well restored vintage piece will probably win.
 
Last edited:
4-2-7 said:
How did the title go from higher end vintage audio vs higher end modern audio?
Click to expand...
What's his face started it in 2011?? We are just carrying it on. :)

4-2-7 said:
To the OP and the rest of the thread, Receivers where never considered higher end nor are modern ones and AVRs.
Click to expand...
True enough and that's why back in the day ... I never bothered with Receivers?? Well OK (technically) I did have a (Receiver) Advent 300 but I used it as a "Tuner/Pre Amp." But your point is understood. :)
 
Stevescivic said:
I am sure this has probably been asked at some point but can folks chime in here about their experiences with vintage vs modern audio?

I like using my vintage receivers with modern speakers and modern music sources. Many of my vintage units are fully restored with all new capacitors and upgraded transistors to replace known problematic ones. The end result are blissful sounding system(s) that I really like a lot.

I was chatting with a friend of mine that has box box store mid tier modern equipment and he says he likes my vintage system more. My sustemmcompared to his isn’t a level playing field as I am running considerably more power and better speakers than what he’s got but he said the difference was quite stark and he is disappointed in how his modestly priced system was outperformed by a 43 year old receiver.

Our conversation got me wondering if the folks here have done side by side tests of old (and fully restored gear) vs. new receivers or amps using the same source and speakers.

With what limited access I have to new gear I will share the following observations.

1. Vintage gear seems sound a tad warmer overall but less accurate. Dynamic range is great and bass notes hit deep and low; tweeters are not fatiguing to the ears even during extended listening sessions

2. Modern equivalents (note I said equivalent as it would be unfair to compare a 270 wpc vintage receiver with a mid tier modern unit) sound more sterile with less “substance to them”. Bass isn’t as lush and rich sounding but isnoverall, more accurate sounding. Higher frequencies I find can be fatiguing at louder volume levels during extended listening sessions.

3. Stereo separation on both old and new are good but the soundstage on vintage units seems bigger and better defined.


Anyone care to share their observations and opinions?
Click to expand...
I have a mixture of old and new.I am changing over to the new woofers and you can really get some nice ones cheap. Shopping for the old vintage is way over priced.
 
From what I've read, select brands and models from the AVR craze in the last 20 years compare well to some of the best vintage. Some are built fairly well but a common problem with the newer stuff is that they have skimped on the solder so cracked joints are common, easy fix though.
 
Depends on how one defines 'vintage.' My 'vintage' components are things like Bell 2200 mono tube amp. My 'modern' components are 1980-90s 'black faceplate' items.
 
Comparison between higher end vintage audio vs higher end modern audio.


For me the biggest difference is...........Higher end vintage tends to be available at prices I'm willing to spend. Higher end modern tends to exceed what I'm willing to spend.

Another facet is that after hearing higher end modern equipment , and comparing it to the what I own.... I cannot hear enough of a difference to cause me to want to go out and spend a bunch more money.

------
 
charles 1973 said:
I heard a small modified chip amp with a sharp wood case that kept out of clipping would easily match the sound quality of a bunch of well regarded vintage reciever's. The dealer wanted $125 for it. I should have bought it.
Click to expand...


Thats a pretty broad statement. Small chip amps can sound fine but so do older receivers if they are in original condition. Comparing new items to old item that are no longer in spec is not a valid comparison. Also when those chip amps crap out, you throw them away. The older stuff was designed to be repairable and their quality is self evident with how many 45 year old units are still rolling along.

I have both newer equipment and vintage items. I prefer to listen to music on the older stuff, but have modern 4K Marantz AVR for the Playstations and movies etc. And yes, I think that some modern items can sound better than the older stuff.
 
Actually, that's quite possible. After all, our gear is very old and let's not forget they were improved by the appearance of the fet. Fets are very common and basical pieces of computers. The audio world didn't make a real move since the old rush that gave us the vintage, when it'll awaken another time, vintage will still be nice but still part of history. For now, the profit question keep that rush from happening but we made a huge improvement into chips, capacitors and such.

Another point that makes vintage so good is that it was designed to work well even on poor houses with bad electricity system, we made also steps on that part as well.

To pally that fact, I saw some vintage repairers, the very good ones, sometimes purposing upgrades with better and newer chips, just few of them to improve the sound.
 
Just to be clear, I love vintage recievers like Pioneers SX-737 and my old Realistic STA-90. They are much more than nastalgic. They are works of art! They perform admirably, had very good tuners and good phono preamps.

The ONLY thing I'm suggesting is that by modifying a good small chip amp we can retain the sound quality of a lot of vintage recievers when kept out of clipping.

These might come in handy in a small room where I don't want a rack full of equipment and my flatscreen TV is mounted to the wall. But I still want good sound from a pair of small bookshelf speakers.
 
I spent the weekend sorting out the inner tape transport workings of a 60's single motor Roberts tube twin amp RTR. Relatively high end for the day.
After that exercise in frustration I think it would be nice to have a brand new high end RTR. It was no fun.
That's my comparison.
 
I only buy vintage items that I can actually use. If it does not work, it is clutter. That goes for any older item, not just audio items. Sometimes new is the only way to go.
 
IME with Luxman equipment, the old ones I've had sound as good as the new ones. I don't really think modern high end has much on '70s/'80s high end. Maybe the loud stuff sounds better, and the good stuff plays louder, but it is quite possible to get competitive high-end sound with old equipment. I think the automotive-engineering analogy, with its 'of course' conclusion is particularly un-apt, sorry. I kind of agree with the sonic observations as generalizations of period sound, but I maintain that the higher end pieces don't exhibit these traits to the same extent as the generalizations.

May I interest anyone in a bridge? It has a clean title.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom