• 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

Has the mid-80s stereo rack been replaced by the Bluetooth speaker?

I thought components killed the console and rack systems brought it back at least in term of performance. Manufactures were producing console systems without the cost of the console. Clever. Following right along I'd say the bluetooth speaker is the current equivalent of the rack system without the cost of the cabinet. The more things change the more they stay the same.
 
swechsler said:
Actually I was just thinking the other day that the Bluetooth speaker is the replacement for the 80s boombox.
Click to expand...
Was just thinking that, or the later equivalent that I grew up with - the late 1990s/early 2000s tabletop stereo. Fond memories of mine, and recording cassettes for with it for car use, lol.

Truth be told, I actually think Bluetooth speakers are just fine for what they are. More convenience and smaller form factor than previous compact solutions for music at home that deliver OK sound quality. That also means it leaves more room for "serious" components for when I want top SQ :D.
 
Danddd said:
I think the rack systems from the 80s replaced the stereo consoles from the 60/70s.

We take a TDK BT speaker with us when we travel and I am always amazed on how good it sounds with either streaming our local jazz radio station or Tidal.



I think this BT speaker might blow away your JBLs:
https://www.crutchfield.com/S-kCLEurHEKX2/p_968OMNIAWL/Sonus-faber-Omnia.html?awcr=77378293981904&awdv=c&awkw=sonus faber bt speaker&awmt=e&awnw=s&awat=&awug=&msclkid=268045a97bb910c1948727ccc1f133ff
Click to expand...

I am surprised at how some of you guys are totally set to one up my post by only focusing on the speakers I am quoting. You have to consider the receiver and the cd player being used to compare to the blue-tooth type speakers. I challenge you to find a blue-tooth speaker which beats out the specs of the Marantz 2252B (10hz-60khz), when playing an sacd on a Marantz SA8001 (2hz-200khz), on JBL L-100's (frequency range unknown). As far as I know, there is NO blue-tooth speaker on Earth that can reproduce that frequency range and the day that there is, I'll buy it! Period.

When comparing wireless blue-tooth to wired stereo you have to pick between convenience and quality. It's that simple. :)

P.S. Tidal is worth every penny and more people should be using it. It sounds rich and full. :)
 
Honestly, I think that the 80s component system has been replaced by the TV and AV receiver. Most people I know use an AV receiver along with an AppleTV/Roku/Google TV device to listen to their music.

People that might have a turntable will often times have it plugged into powered speakers rather than get an amp. And if they do get an amp, it will be a small Class D amp. Most online buzz these days is around best bang for your buck equipment.
 
The Shocker said:
Honestly, I think that the 80s component system has been replaced by the TV and AV receiver. Most people I know use an AV receiver along with an AppleTV/Roku/Google TV device to listen to their music.

People that might have a turntable will often times have it plugged into powered speakers rather than get an amp. And if they do get an amp, it will be a small Class D amp. Most online buzz these days is around best bang for your buck equipment.
Click to expand...


I could not agree more. People are using transports these days (cd players without on board DAC's), and the majority just use chromecast or the like to broadcast streaming music through their tv's hdmi cable to home theater systems. This is a great way of using your mobile device or tv remote to stream songs without the need to get up out of your chair. The convenience factor is a 10 out of 10. That being said, I prefer critical listening sessions to be done whilst sitting back in an arm chair playing analogue source material in the sweet spot in my main room on a vintage 70's silver faced era stereo. House parties are handled by a 70-volt mono bluetooth receiver wired to 21 speakers throughout the house to bring sound to every room as you dance around and mingle. Movies are watched through a Bose acoustimass 5.1 surround sound system with Bose 301's out front playing through a Nakamichi av-10 home theater receiver. Everything in its place. I enjoy all three systems which are for different things. You will never beat the convenience of the bluetooth system as I can just whip out my i-phone and play whatever I want through Tidal, but there is just something about popping in an sacd for critical listening sessions after work. :)
 
Rectilinear1 said:
I could not agree more. People are using transports these days (cd players without on board DAC's), and the majority just use chromecast or the like to broadcast streaming music through their tv's hdmi cable to home theater systems. This is a great way of using your mobile device or tv remote to stream songs without the need to get up out of your chair. The convenience factor is a 10 out of 10. That being said, I prefer critical listening sessions to be done whilst sitting back in an arm chair playing analogue source material in the sweet spot in my main room on a vintage 70's silver faced era stereo. House parties are handled by a 70-volt mono bluetooth receiver wired to 21 speakers throughout the house to bring sound to every room as you dance around and mingle. Movies are watched through a Bose acoustimass 5.1 surround sound system with Bose 301's out front playing through a Nakamichi av-10 home theater receiver. Everything in its place. I enjoy all three systems which are for different things. You will never beat the convenience of the bluetooth system as I can just whip out my i-phone and play whatever I want through Tidal, but there is just something about popping in an sacd for critical listening sessions after work. :)
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. The right tool for the job. When I go to the store, I take a pair of Koss KPH-40 headphones with me. They plug into my phone via the Lightning port, and don't need amplification. The sound is incredible for the price. When I take public transportation, I have noise cancelling headphones I use, the Beats Solo Pro. They sound really good.

Every once in a while, I will see a guy on the train or in the store carrying around a headphone amp and DAC that is plugged into their phone via USB and some largo headphones. What the heck for?

Now when I am home, I have my DAC, headphone amp and my Sennheiser HD6xx headphones. If I don't want headphones, I have my All Volt+ D amp and a pair of ELAC UniFi 2.0 speakers. I can play records, CDs, SACDs, stream FLACs off my home server, or pop in a cassette.
 
Sennheiser hdpro headphones are my favvy. There is just something about 64ohms that blows me away in the sound quality department. :)
 
Many a mass market early SS receiver had great specs and...ah...less than great sound. One with a reputation for good sound among many audiophiles, when they thought about receivers, was the Sherwood, which despite its reputation in the 70s seems to evoke little interest today, perhaps because Sherwood wasn't clever enough to give its gear model names with SX appeal.

Even most early SS separates such as McIntosh, Marantz, Phase Linear, Fisher, Crown and Dynaco were less than stellar--Dynaco didn't get it right until their second generation SS with the ST-400 and PAT-5. IMO&E the first outfit to do excellent SS was Quad, then Dynaco. On the heels of second generation Dynaco SS GAS came along with excellent SS and then it was off to the races.
 
Last edited:
I think we're in a golden age of audio. Other than some rare gems in the 80s, good quality sound cost good money back in the day.

In 2022, it's very possible to get an amp that sounds amazing and measures well for well under $200. There are some Class D amps out there that are truly amazing. It's very possible to get a system that makes you happy for well under $1000. I just went out today and bought a pair of JBL LSR305P MK II studio monitors for $300 and hooked them up to my desk, and the sound is pretty amazing for just $300. The sound probably won't fill a room, but it gives me amazing sound quality for listening to music while I work all day.

Of course the problem with a lot of today's stuff is longevity. If you buy an amazing class D amp from China that's under $200, will it still be working 10 years from now?
 
The Shocker said:
Of course the problem with a lot of today's stuff is longevity. If you buy an amazing class D amp from China that's under $200, will it still be working 10 years from now?
Click to expand...

Well, if a good sounding $200 amp breaks after a few years you just get another one and you're probably still ahead. But is it really demonstrable that modern stuff is generally less reliable than older stuff?
 
Tom Brennan said:
Well, if a good sounding $200 amp breaks after a few years you just get another one and you're probably still ahead. But is it really demonstrable that modern stuff is generally less reliable than older stuff?
Click to expand...

In home audio, it's tough to say. A lot of stuff is using external power bricks instead of built in power supplies. A lot of this stuff is not UL listed. I remember there used to be a whole thing with early SMSL products, where, if the power brick was already plugged into the wall and then you plugged it into the back of the amp, it would spark. The stuff hasn't been around long enough for us to know how reliable it is. It definitely uses less power, though.

The one plus with vintage gear is that it was designed to be serviced. Modern lower priced equipment is designed to be tossed and replaced once it stops working.

There's also the repair vs replace cost. When you spend $200 on something, you probably don't want to spend another $200 to fix it, when you can get a new unit that has a warranty.
 
cchean said:
Growing up in the 70s and 80s, my dream system would be a stereo rack with a integrated amp/receiver, turntable, cassette deck and a pair of three-way speakers. I tirelessly browsed the catalogs and drooled over the pictures of such systems from Technics, Pioneer and Sansui, just to name a few. I still find these systems quite charming whenever there is one up for sale at the used market.

Fast forward to the 2022s, I guess the equivalent to those systems is a smartphone and a bluetooth speaker? What do you think? The high-end market is doing well, but that doesn't count. For me, that is a niche market.
Click to expand...

I have an HD Bluetooth receiver connected to my Marantz PM8006 which is connected to Ruark Paladins. I would say this Bluetooth set up sounds better than an 80's stereo rack.
 
Bob in WI said:
Yes. They have replaced the transistor radio of the 60's, the boombox of the 70's & the Walkman of the 80's.
You can't drag the big rig out on to the beach, into the park or into a parking lot (if you're a tailgater).
Click to expand...

Totally true lol. However, as I've gotten older I don't like to listen to music on the go as much anymore. If I go to the beach, I'd rather just take in the sounds of nature and the ocean.
 
ChrisbC said:
I have an HD Bluetooth receiver connected to my Marantz PM8006 which is connected to Ruark Paladins. I would say this Bluetooth set up sounds better than an 80's stereo rack.
Click to expand...
Bear in mind most of the cheap rack set ups from the mid80s to 90s were basically mass market low fi systems , there is a lot of good audio from that time period but it’s very seldom it’s rack systems ! Components, receivers and real rack systems designed to fit in universal racks sold in higher end audio stores could amaze ! The lower end served a purpose ,low cost audio made to look fancy fine for a small apt or room
 
A close friend's older brother considered himself quite the audiophile and insisted that you need a component for every function. It wasn't good enough to buy a receiver. You had to buy a tuner and an amp. And you could not just buy an integrated amp. You an amp and a pre-amp. No dual tape decks. You had to buy 2 separate tape decks.

I think there is a lot of value to having a stack of nice components in a house. A good receiver/amp and a nice pair of speakers is going to sound much better than anything Bluetooth is going to throw at you.

But with portable listening, things have advanced leaps and bounds over what they were in the 70s and 80s. The quality of a good pair of EIMs and even an old iPod is going to sound better than the Walkmen of old. And a nice Bluetooth or WiFi speaker will sound better that the average 80s boom box will.
 
The Shocker said:
A close friend's older brother considered himself quite the audiophile and insisted that you need a component for every function. It wasn't good enough to buy a receiver. You had to buy a tuner and an amp. And you could not just buy an integrated amp. You an amp and a pre-amp. No dual tape decks. You had to buy 2 separate tape decks.

I think there is a lot of value to having a stack of nice components in a house. A good receiver/amp and a nice pair of speakers is going to sound much better than anything Bluetooth is going to throw at you.

But with portable listening, things have advanced leaps and bounds over what they were in the 70s and 80s. The quality of a good pair of EIMs and even an old iPod is going to sound better than the Walkmen of old. And a nice Bluetooth or WiFi speaker will sound better that the average 80s boom box will.
Click to expand...
Quite agree outs are transistor radios to shame as well as Walkman and discman players
 
We've got a Tribit "stereo" BT speaker that sounds way better than I ever expected it to, and it's now our portable travel tunes "solution." Does fine replacing a boombox or the small pair of powered speakers and battery-operated portable CD player we used to schlepp on vacations. As far as replacing anything resembling an actual decent stereo.....no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom