Let's be perfectly honest here..
- Thread starter pognoot
- Start date
Seriously john? you have not read a single word I have written on the subject during my (comparatively) short tenure here?
I have been reviewing stereo equipment formally and informally for 20 years. you even wrote in another thread that I gave my supporting evidence and now you yank that away?
the link above someone just posted is a prime example. I know you dont feel the Yammies are all that, but the REALITY is, (and as I alluded to in the other thread about modern stuff when I stated "with the exception of yamaha natural sound stuff") the yammies, nearly all of them, ARE TOTL sound wise - price be darned.
that new whiz bang pioneer you got (which in another thread I also indicated I kept up on albeit a slightly different model) and its purist mode of operation is what our vintage did all along, and Yamaha 're invented' in the late 80's. Get get a natural sound ad from 1989 and compare to the ad for your pioneer. Tell me where they differ other than the actual picture.
As I said before, solid state amps are not a new invention. As thousands of graphics have shown, flattening out the response curve 20-20K is not a new invention. As thousands of graphics have shown, keeping full response distortion below a certain level is not a new invention.
I know taste is subjective, but you cannot, and will not have any ablility to reproduce sound authentically if the amp is unable to perform. period.
I got my last new amp in the 94 time frame. Based on a stereo review recommendation (Pioneer VSN D602S). Their reasons were very technical and backed up, how a redesign of the pioneer line, including the new video rage, did not have to take away from the sound and the 602/712 were the top 1994 recommendation due to bang/buck considerations.
what makes my units (I have 2 now) stand out then as they do now? they switch in completely different amps to deal with soundfields and digital. Just like your new pioneer. When in 2ch mode, I get 2 honest to god, pioneer reputation amps and responses with the ability to move forward to AV, not the mandate.
As I said before, there is no reason the manus cannot do the same today. Someone mentioned the price point of middle of the road stuff 'back then'. To which I respond: yea at radio shack or jcpennys. The japanese silver were often had for much less than that middle of the road but this is irrelevant - they were hand assembled. From components that cost more then than they do now.
There is no reason we cannot get sx1980 performance from anyone for $200. Other than the chinese philosophy of 'cost down' - cheapen the product to the point that the customer will no longer accept it, then improve one level.
Your statement borders on the absurdity that it would also imply I am typing this on an IBM PC XT. Why? why do we not get to enjoy Moorese law fallout (lookitup) on good stereo equipment? We did on Tvs. a 19" floor console in the 70s - TOTL started in at $500-$700. by the 80's it was 27inches, by the 90's it was 35 inches all because of manufacturing savings - no real new technology was involved.
now look, today with all the flatscreens they are all without exception, junk. they will stop working on quick order and they will nto be fixable. Todays electronics are considered by both supplier and consumer alike to be disposable. They dont have to be, but you the buying public have mandated it.
Im not going to even consider the big buck equipment for the simple reason that the same people that got them then, get them now.
while before there were a few brick and mortar stores that did mail order, I would be very suprised if there was a high line brick and mortar store, unless it generated its required sales volume mostly thru e-bizness. As I said before, there are no surprises or unmet expectations. If a person pays that much, they expect it to perform past their lifetime. If not then someone is being stupid.
Right now, without too much yellow page thumbing I know that I have best buy (where you got yours), some sears, HH Gregg, Aarons nearby.
those are my choices. what, really are they going to offer me?
tape decks? turntables? cd players? Best buy is going to have minimum 50 amps on the shelves. Of which only 5 will be decent audio wise. In the days gone by, the sound store had 100 amps on display of which just about every one was tailored for sound, and you paid for watts and buttons. Even the lowliest SX450/580 got attention to sonic detail.
If you recall in the discussion about the new pioneers, I didnt bring it down sonic wise. I simply stated that *it should have been doing what it now does all along*. As I said before poorly quoting wesley snipes: "this is the future, where are the phaser guns?" Dont tell me how you are paying attention to signal path detail when I have 2 houses full of units older than half the posters here, doing just that....If you want to wow me, wow me.
and something else that occured to me when reading the linked article: yeah, the feedback in the old machines was just as good as the servo controlled feedback of new, but the older machines had to contend with something called a 'damping factor' (lookitup) new machines do not, simply because no one makes big woofers anymore. I was looking at new speaks - not a single air moving woofer in there. everyone figures you will be getting your deep bass from a sub (because someone figured out that firing sound into the floor and taking advantage of the accoustic transmitting characterstics of OSB over SPF joists is more lifelike
)the test linked in, played 2 vintage units and one new unit over modern speaks. I would like to see this repeated over a set of older (top condition of course) speaks.
and efficiency, geezus, we made the use of our 45-50 run of the mill WPC becuase we found speaks that started at 94db/w/m. I was looking at $15000 speaks at 89db/w/m. no wonder everything has to start at 100wpc nowadays...its the only way you will hear it.
Hands down, the most surprising comments I have ever ever gotten (and I have said this before) was from a sx450 with a matched set of project 60 speaks. No one beleived me it was only 15wpc.
so the reality is, the only things I have made up my mind about is, if you want me to evaluate your system for purchase, dont bring me amps that are not flat 20-20k. dont bring me amps that have distortion measured in tenths over 1Khz, let alone full range. dont bring me low levels of crosstalk, dont bring me high levels of sep.
If your machine meets those requirements, fine when the running stuff dies, I will check it out
I seriously can not follow what you are trying to say. There is plenty of great gear out there today. But you keep bringing up Best Buy. The market is different! Nobody wants a big stereo anymore. Look up economies of scale. The good stuff is now at smaller stores, they sell less of it. The same stuff, costs more, because its not spread out over hundreds of thousands of units. They make two channel that has nothing to do with AV. It's very good stuff, and much of it is not that expensive.
Damping factor? Who cares! It has about as little to do with sound quality as any other spec taken out of context, including THD and WPC.
The very fact that you think a CRT is comparable to modern TVs just makes me not really care one bit about this debate. TVs today LOOK better than they ever did, by such a huge quantifiable margin, than anybody who says otherwise, is blinded by nostalgia. I don't care if it lasts 20 years, because I won't HAVE it in 20 years. Things are getting lighter, thinner, with more resolution- and I want the improvement. Don't overbuild it to last 15 years longer than I will have it, because I DON'T want to pay for it to live a long life somewhere else. Just make it look better- that's what a TV should do.
And there is NO WAY you could make an SX-1980 for $200. You simply don't understand economies of scale in a shrinking market. But nobody would want to, anyway- it was built for specs and bragging, not sound quality. You can get better sound out of a Peachtree Audio Nova.
Damping factor? Who cares! It has about as little to do with sound quality as any other spec taken out of context, including THD and WPC.
The very fact that you think a CRT is comparable to modern TVs just makes me not really care one bit about this debate. TVs today LOOK better than they ever did, by such a huge quantifiable margin, than anybody who says otherwise, is blinded by nostalgia. I don't care if it lasts 20 years, because I won't HAVE it in 20 years. Things are getting lighter, thinner, with more resolution- and I want the improvement. Don't overbuild it to last 15 years longer than I will have it, because I DON'T want to pay for it to live a long life somewhere else. Just make it look better- that's what a TV should do.
And there is NO WAY you could make an SX-1980 for $200. You simply don't understand economies of scale in a shrinking market. But nobody would want to, anyway- it was built for specs and bragging, not sound quality. You can get better sound out of a Peachtree Audio Nova.
michaelhigh
mind's eye music
Being one with 99% vintage gear I agree with the quote. I like warm anyway.:yes:
Maybe this thread is already passed it, but I don't think it was sufficiently said that a headphone comparison is a completely invalid method of comparing two receivers (except for comparing how well they work with your headphones, of course).
The headphone output may be driven from the main output through resistors or from a completely separate amplifier circuit. Either way, it is useless as a representation of the performance of the main amplifier output into speakers, for lots of reasons.
The headphone output may be driven from the main output through resistors or from a completely separate amplifier circuit. Either way, it is useless as a representation of the performance of the main amplifier output into speakers, for lots of reasons.
michaelhigh
mind's eye music
:yes:
Please perform the same test with wav files instead of lossy mp3 and we'll have a better source to work with, and you'll thank me for improving your listening to a huge degree.:yes:
Please perform the same test with wav files instead of lossy mp3 and we'll have a better source to work with, and you'll thank me for improving your listening to a huge degree.:yes:
No, you lookitup. It's nasty impedance curves that require low output impedance, which can come from any size of woofer, and new machines have lower output impedance anyway!
Pass. I will let a bunch of dead bearded guys do my talking for me. A massive woofer, moving at woofy speeds is going to generate a hell of a current.
Y'aint getting around that one.
simplistic quoth:
Larger speakers, aka more massive, harder to stop.
todays machines are not going to see the same pushback yesterdays machines did. Like I said, Id wanna see this test redone using big ole manly vintage speaks.
whoaru99
Epic Member
I had a response almost exactly like this typed up then pulled the plug. It's spot on. There is just some technology I really don't want to pay for 20 years of life because it'll be so outdated by then it's pathetic. My plasma, which I think is approaching 5,500 hours of absolutely trouble free use, was the example I had keyed up. I seriously doubt any failure is imminent because it's well past infant mortality failure period and well past the end of the warranty period (where some people claim is intentional design to fail). HT receivers/processors are another example. Who the heck wants a 20 year old HT processor....besides maybe a museum?
Last edited:
whoaru99
Epic Member
Damping factor has essentially zero to do with controlling cone motion.
Previously you mentioned that you liked the technical reasons for something you purchased. Well, here are two pages of technical detail about damping factor.
http://www.audioholics.com/education/amplifier-technology/damping-factor-effects-on-system-response
Skylab
Watcher of the skies
I'm sorry but while that may be your opinion, that a Peachtree Audio Nova sounds better than a SX-1980, having heard the Nova extensively, I simply can't agree at all. It sounds nice enough, in a sort of "this is what I think an audiophile product ought to sound like" kind of way, but it wasn't particularly impressive, IMHO, at all. Heard it twice. Couldn't figure out what the fuss was about. Very unimpressed.
And again, just for context, while I own a bunch of vintage gear, I also have a very high end, thoroughly modern hifi. I love the best of both worlds :thmbsp:
I think I've been tainted by the SX-1280 I had. I can think of nothing I've owned that I found to be less impressive. But replace Peachtree Nova with NAD or Creek or Musical Fidelity or whatever- the point being, there is budget gear out there, that sounds very good. Some doesn't, some does- but I feel the same about vintage. Plenty of excellence, along with plenty of dogs. I run my 2011 Pioneer Elite SC-27 with a Luxman amp from the late '70s- even in that system, I don't think a decision needs to be made. Good, is good.
But you can't get away from the idea that so much of this is subjective. I also think the source gear and speakers tied to any of these amps has more to do with how they will sound than anything- talking about them in a vacuum is kind of pointless. But we do it anyway
George Augspurger may have had a beard when he was running JBL pro in 1967, and wrote this:
http://documents.jordan-usa.com/Famous-Articles/The-Damping-Factor-Debate-by-George-Augspurger.pdf
dnewma04
The Healer
Funny that. I've heard a number of SX1980s including two thoroughly restored models and I really don't get the draw when it comes to sonics. I can understand the collectibility, of course.
Skylab
Watcher of the skies
I think I've been tainted by the SX-1280 I had. I can think of nothing I've owned that I found to be less impressive. But replace Peachtree Nova with NAD or Creek or Musical Fidelity or whatever- the point being, there is budget gear out there, that sounds very good. Some doesn't, some does- but I feel the same about vintage. Plenty of excellence, along with plenty of dogs. I run my 2011 Pioneer Elite SC-27 with a Luxman amp from the late '70s- even in that system, I don't think a decision needs to be made. Good, is good.
But you can't get away from the idea that so much of this is subjective. I also think the source gear and speakers tied to any of these amps has more to do with how they will sound than anything- talking about them in a vacuum is kind of pointless. But we do it anyway
Amen to all of that :thmbsp: So much indeed is subjective, and so much is synergy of the gear, the room, and the listener. Absolutely in terms of "what sounds good" are impossible. There is only "what sounds good to me".
And of course when talking about vintage gear, sadly, sound will vary from sample to sample depending on condition, so one cannot even count on getting the same sound from two of the same model.
Skylab
Watcher of the skies
Yeah, see above, I guess...we all hear it differently. I find the SX-1980 to be highly transparent and very neutral. Now, not everyone likes very neutral. I get that. Heck, I don't always like it, when it comes to speakers :scratch2:
whoaru99
Epic Member
In some regards I disagree. I think in abstract you're right, "what sounds good to me". But, for example, if a group of people could evaluate the same three systems in the same setting I think more or most would agree on the best sound out of the common experience. Point being, I think the tastes and takes about what sounds good or better are less individual than often said, but more the issue is lack of true common frames of reference.