RogerKulp
Super Member
Two words Energy Star :thumbsdn:
It would be cool if audio followed auto-makers lead . . .
- Thread starter Artie
- Start date
Two words Energy Star :thumbsdn:
RogerKulp
Super Member
Not to mention,no part of it made in China.
Is this a problem with the Marantz and McIntosh tube reissues?
dusty42701
Super Member
I don't know what your talking about, audio companies are already following car dealers.
We used to have reliable, wonderful sounding tube receivers and such, now we have all-in-one home-theater-in-a-box from Walmart.
Ford used to built TANKS at one point, now they build trucks with excessive premature piston wear and infamous fuel injector problems. Things just aren't built like they used to be.
We used to have reliable, wonderful sounding tube receivers and such, now we have all-in-one home-theater-in-a-box from Walmart.
Ford used to built TANKS at one point, now they build trucks with excessive premature piston wear and infamous fuel injector problems. Things just aren't built like they used to be.
Yup! They are built better. Most cars nowadays will go 150,000 miles with not much more than oil changes, while getting unimaginably good gas mileage, not polluting the environment and actually giving you a pretty fair shot at surviving the mother of all car accidents. (which your Ford "tank" would not).
Thank God, cars ain't built the way they used to be.
Have you owned a car built in the last ten years? They are so much nicer than anything I've had built earlier, that the old cars seem like they were just practice. My car is just about to flip past 100,000 miles and it runs like the day I bought it, after some scheduled maintenance. And it gets 227hp out of a four cylinder engine and has all wheel drive. My 1981 Citation, '84 Daytona, '86 Cougar and '91 Cougar can rest happily in the junk yards that I'm sure they're in. The '73 Cougar was better but what a boat, and it was getting about 12mpg at the end, and didn't handle any better than the Titanic. And it was about as uselessly big.
What he said.
Last edited:
Mini cooper = Bmw stepchild fiat 500 ?? why . Chevy Sonic and Cruise better for less money Porsche 911 expensive fun weekender not practical. for a daily driver, Porsche Boxter cool but engines had a habit of exploding. Camaro and and Challanger much improved from their vintage namesakes add Mustang to this catagory . Chevy Corvette
can hold it's own with exotics at triple their price . Chryslers/Jeeps are vastly improved
over the last 5-6 years . here is how safe older cars were http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
can hold it's own with exotics at triple their price . Chryslers/Jeeps are vastly improved
over the last 5-6 years . here is how safe older cars were http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
Last edited:
bergun
Well-Known Member
I would love a new Yamaha M-85/C-85/T-85... Even if the "guts" were not the same... As long as it is equal or better than the original in sound and build, but with the same or very close to the same styling.
Also, a H/T receiver with "7.1" channels with the looks of the old Yamaha RX-1100 or their R-9 "2" channel receivers from the mid 80s would be super cool too!!
Yes, the sound and build are the most important elements, but looks do count too. I'm tired of buying used gear off of the Bay, only to find out it has issues. If this ever happened, ALL of my Yamaha gear from the 80s and my Pioneer stuff from the 70s will be back on the market at a below average cost... So this wouldn't be a bad thing at all!! "BUT" I do not see this ever happening and I'm thankful that Yamaha has given us the A-S2000/CD-S2000, but more would be better!!!!!!
Also, a H/T receiver with "7.1" channels with the looks of the old Yamaha RX-1100 or their R-9 "2" channel receivers from the mid 80s would be super cool too!!
Yes, the sound and build are the most important elements, but looks do count too. I'm tired of buying used gear off of the Bay, only to find out it has issues. If this ever happened, ALL of my Yamaha gear from the 80s and my Pioneer stuff from the 70s will be back on the market at a below average cost... So this wouldn't be a bad thing at all!! "BUT" I do not see this ever happening and I'm thankful that Yamaha has given us the A-S2000/CD-S2000, but more would be better!!!!!!
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
They just released another one in the form of an integrated amp, apparently, and I believe it's around $2500-$3000 (see edit below) - Stereophile reviewed it no long ago. It's a good example, I think, of the point John brought up about how expensive these things would be, and therefore probably unlikely to appeal to the crowd they'd be aimed at.
EDIT: Wow I was way off about the price, good thing I checked - it's currently $5999, here's the review on Stereophile's website:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/quad-ii-classic-integrated-amplifier
That Outlaw is nice, but it's not really terribly "retro" other than being fairly high-performance 2-channel (as opposed to HT) receiver and in that it has an aluminum face plate and rotary controls. Cosmetically it's - just kind of weird - and it's otherwise chock-full of digitalia.
Yes, I have one of those, and the longer I've had it, the less and less it seems in appearance or function like a retro-vintage unit. The styling leans in that direction, and I agree that it's weird - the lady actually dislikes its appearance.
Last edited:
MAXZ28
Addicted Member
I think it would be heavenly if the companies would just offer replacement parts for our vintage pieces like faceplates, knobs, cabinets, and the likes. Sure it would be a niche market - sure it would be expensive, but damn wouldn't it be nice to buy a factory replacement part to nix those cosmetic blemishes on your favorite audio component? :yes:
If I ever won the lottery, I think that would be a nice little start up business I'd enjoy pursuing.
If I ever won the lottery, I think that would be a nice little start up business I'd enjoy pursuing.
just dave
vintage rules!
Well yes and no.Newer cars are safer, get better mpg and have many more creature comforts.Older cars,say pre 72,way easier to work on,better lookin and more fun to drive.:yes:
I will concede that they are easier to work on. Which is a good thing because you have to work in them a LOT more. Better looking? Hit and miss in my opinion. But that's like debating which girl is prettier. More fun to drive? I guess if you like cars that don't handle well, don't steer or brake well, accelerate more slowly, have poor throttle response, lousy seats, etc. then sure, they are more fun to drive.
Sometime this winter you should go for a spin with me in the snow in my AWD Impreza-WRX. Or you can bring your '70s rear wheel drive boat and I'll race ya!
Having had a Chevy Citation, I will agree. Give me the HK. That thing ended up with nearly 200,000 miles, though. It was more aerodynamic in the end because it was so full of rust holes that air just went right through it. It dropped its muffler once on the highway...thing just flew off. And for the next 10 miles it sounded like a muscle car (it had the V-6). What I do miss about that car was the bench seat, allowing my girlfriend to snuggle up to me when I drove her back to her place (this was HS). What kind of girl dates a kid with a Citation?
mhardy6647
Lunatic Member
heh, Susan and I had a hand-me-down, first year (1980) X-body car from the in-laws when we were starting out. Two-toned silver and grey Olds Omega (X) with bordello red cloth upholstery! The intermittent wipers would fail... intermittently... and catastrophically (no wipers at all when it did). The second time the starter fell off... I said "time to get a new car".
They got better in the second production year. The first new car I owned was a 1981 Chevy Citation, a four-door hatch with the Iron Duke 4-cylinder engine and automatic transmission. It was dark brown with light brown vinyl seats. I ran it for 8 years and 145,000 miles with no major problems. It still had the original alternator, starter and battery on it when I sold it. The lady who bought it from me put new tires, brakes and exhaust on it and ran it up past 280,000 miles in the next several years. She then sold or gave it to her boyfriend, who took it past 300,000 miles. Neither the engine nor the transmission required any major repairs over the entire life of the car.
just dave
vintage rules!
I will concede that they are easier to work on. Which is a good thing because you have to work in them a LOT more. Better looking? Hit and miss in my opinion. But that's like debating which girl is prettier. More fun to drive? I guess if you like cars that don't handle well, don't steer or brake well, accelerate more slowly, have poor throttle response, lousy seats, etc. then sure, they are more fun to drive.
I had a 72 Chevelle with a 400hp big block heavy duty sway bars and a stiff front suspension so acceleration and handling were not a problem and my seats were just fine ,so it was more fun to drive.
RamblinE
(╯°□°)╯彡┻━┻
I guess if you like cars that don't handle well, don't steer or brake well, accelerate more slowly, have poor throttle response, lousy seats, etc. then sure, they are more fun to drive.
I engine brake to make my brake pads last longer. My brakes stop the car on (almost) a dime.
A constant theme that comes up every time the domestic auto mags or, say, Top Gear, drive an old muscle car is that the brakes don't work. The steering feels like a wooden paddle tied to the front wheels by some twin and the suspension may as well be made of wood. Go fast all you want but I like handling. I can have my fun a midst some traffic, without breaking any speeding laws, and only looking like an asshole. If I wanted a toy car that doesn't always work I'd look for a Jaguar E-Type, Triumph TR3 or MG Midget (see the theme here?). But day in and day out I drive my relatively modern Mazda Miata where ever I need to go.
And that's because they just don't build them like they used to. They build them work