Modern or Vintage?

[DavidZak]

But again as I said the more that's stuffed into one box the worse it is for SQ. There is less and less room for the individual components under the hood, so they have to be smaller and made of less quality.

Are you comparing a dial up to a smart phone? Technology does have it's advantages. Not to argue though. I value the input and your vote. I prefer more of a clean sterile sound. Some like warmth. Chocolate or Vanilla?

 

[Grenadeslio]

Are you comparing a dial up to a smart phone? Technology has it's advantages. Not to argue though. I value the input and your vote.

Apples to oranges.

 

[Dude111]

Def Vintage ---Much better

 

[grillebilly]

We live in a different time than when what we now call vintage gear was made. Most consumer grade stuff is disposable now.
IMO if you bought "budget" equipment back then it was pretty darn good. These days, probably lesser quality.
There is little doubt in my mind that you can put together a better system with new components. It will of course cost you more but adjusted for inflation, not that much more than what that old gear cost new.

 

[4-2-7]

Are you comparing a dial up to a smart phone? Technology has it's advantages. Not to argue though. I value the input and your vote.

I haven't voted, you don't have a spot for me.

Yes technology has it's advantages today over old gear, but your still talking bottom of the line gear for reproducing music. As a given trait, separate components built in their own box will sound better than multiple components all stuffed into one box. This has not changed since the beginning of powered audio to today.

 

[DavidZak]

I haven't voted, you don't have a spot for me.

Yes technology has it's advantages today over old gear, but your still talking bottom of the line gear for reproducing music. As a given trait, separate components built in their own box will sound better than multiple components all stuffed into one box. This has not changed since the beginning of powered audio to today.

I am not comparing for Music purposes. I am asking overall for a main system. Movies and Music. Not everyone has two or three systems. Just to clarify. I'm not leaving the home theater people out.

 

[Grenadeslio]

I am not comparing for Music purposes. I am asking overall for a main system. Movies and Music. Not everyone has two or three systems. Just to clarify. I'm not leaving the home theater people out.

Separates still rule even for multi-channel audio.

As for new vs old, it makes no difference, money talks and BS walks today just as it did 50 yrs ago. If you want good sound you gots ta pay the piper.

 

[DavidZak]

We live in a different time than when what we now call vintage gear was made. Most consumer grade stuff is disposable now.
IMO if you bought "budget" equipment back then it was pretty darn good. These days, probably lesser quality.
There is little doubt in my mind that you can put together a better system with new components. It will of course cost you more but adjusted for inflation, not that much more than what that old gear cost new.

Top quality AVR's from the golden years 1995-2002 can be bought for pennies on the dollar that would sound just as good as a Desirable Vintage piece if not better. Marantz, Sony, Pioneer Denon and Yamaha all had flagship models that sounded incredible and quite powerful. If you like clean power they are a huge bang for the buck.

 

[4-2-7]

I am not comparing for Music purposes. I am asking overall for a main system. Movies and Music. Not everyone has two or three systems. Just to clarify. I'm not leaving the home theater people out.

It doesn't matter if it's music, talking or and explosion sound effect.

My main system is all separates, mostly all analog, mostly newer and some new and pretty old. I have a stand alone DAC for some things, I have computers streaming over wifi, the TV and CDPs going to it as well as turntables, reel to reels. I can record analog and 24bit WAV digital. I can run a sub without a multi channel processor.

Maybe your question should have been, do you like old receivers or new multi channel AVRs.

 

[4-2-7]

Terrible poll. Pits one versus the other and not good. Everyone is entitled to be right. There is no wrong answers.

Top quality AVR's from the golden years 1995-2002 can be bought for pennies on the dollar that would sound just as good as a Desirable Vintage piece if not better. Marantz, Sony, Pioneer Denon and Yamaha all had flagship models that sounded incredible and quite powerful. If you like clean power they are a huge bang for the buck.

And Bot pulled your covers earlier, sorry bang for the buck, there is always trade offs, cheap AVRs are not the best of all worlds.

 

[DavidZak]

It doesn't matter if it's music, talking or and explosion sound effect.

My main system is all separates, mostly all analog, mostly newer and some new and pretty old. I have a stand alone DAC for some things, I have computers streaming over wifi, the TV and CDPs going to it as well as turntables, reel to reels. I can record analog and 24bit WAV digital. I can run a sub without a multi channel processor.

Maybe your question should have been, do you like old receivers or new multi channel AVRs.

Older AV

And Bot pulled your covers earlier, sorry bang for the buck, there is always trade offs, cheap AVRs are not the best of all worlds.

Avrs were not cheap. The good ones ran about $2000.00 to $3000.00 but you already know that. Because you have owned it all and have special golden ears that know what everyone else should prefer. All I asked is what Aker's own and what they prefer to get an idea of some different set ups and the benefits and also what they enjoy there systems for. Is that not legit? Don't Vote. It's you choice.

 

[grillebilly]

Top quality

That may be your experience. I bought the most expensive 5 channel surround sound receiver JVC made when it first came out. JVC was the vendor for BMW cars so I had an inside deal and got the finest they made. My 1978 next-to-bottom-of-the-line Onkyo sounded MUCH better. It still does, it gets played everyday.
You are right about buying them for pennies. They do give good bang-for-buck. But I don't think that's what we are talking about here.
Personally, I don't have a problem with what anyone else does with their money. Spend one hundred or one hundred thousand. Please yourself, that's what it's about.

 

[Grenadeslio]

Top quality AVR's from the golden years 1995-2002 can be bought for pennies on the dollar that would sound just as good as a Desirable Vintage piece if not better. Marantz, Sony, Pioneer Denon and Yamaha all had flagship models that sounded incredible and quite powerful. If you like clean power they are a huge bang for the buck.

So you've already made up your mind that modern AVR's are superior and just want to stir the pot?

Well let's take a look at some vintage gear, and not even separates.

This is a schveet little Kenwood integrated I'm lucky enough to own, notice the clean architectural layout of the true dual mono design, very nice amp, you won't find this in your typical AVR at the thrift store, TOTL or not.



A little bit about the amplifier.


Now, as great as the amplifier above is, it's only the little sibling to these others and would be dwarfed if side by side.



.

 

[RTally]

My equipment and speakers range from mid-1960 up to just a few years ago. I buy what works for me and what I like listening to. I also like to be frugal, so I often acquire older TOTL rather than newer BOTL or MOTL for about the same bucks.

 

[Grenadeslio]

Another example of something you won't find in your typical AVR, caps the size of soda cans, and transformers that weigh as much as your car's battery lol.

 

[grillebilly]

Speaking of dual mono, Onkyo 8500 MKII. About a grand in 1978

 

[Grenadeslio]

Speaking of dual mono, Onkyo 8500 MKII. About a grand in 1978

View attachment 1520337

Yowzaaa, look at that mess, no wonder I'm a Kenwood guy lol. Bet it kicks ass though. In its defence there is a tuner in there also, another reason I'm not a receiver kinda guy.

 

[DavidZak]

So you've already made up your mind that modern AVR's are superior and just want to stir the pot?

Well let's take a look at some vintage gear, and not even separates.

This is a schveet little Kenwood integrated I'm lucky enough to own, notice the clean architectural layout of the true dual mono design, very nice amp, you won't find this in your typical AVR at the thrift store, TOTL or not.

View attachment 1520315
A little bit about the amplifier.
View attachment 1520313

Now, as great as the amplifier above is, it's only the little sibling to these others and would be dwarfed if side by side.

View attachment 1520306

.

She's a beauty. No I don't think AVR's sound better for Music but they are not totally inferior to the Vintage for many reasons. All rooms and ears and taste are different. if I had the money I sure would own a Killer vintage set up also. But for now I'll have to stick with my AVR and enjoy the Music and an occasional Movie. As long as I enjoy and I'm happy with what I hear is all that matters.

 

[DavidZak]

She's a beauty. No I don't think AVR's sound better for Music but they are not totally inferior to the Vintage for many reasons. All rooms and ears and taste are different. if I had the money I sure would own a Killer vintage set up also. But for now I'll have to stick with my AVR and enjoy the Music and an occasional Movie. As long as I enjoy and I'm happy with what I hear is all that matters.

 

[Grenadeslio]

She's a beauty. No I don't think AVR's sound better for Music but they are not totally inferior to the Vintage for many reasons. All rooms and ears and taste are different. if I had the money I sure would own a Killer vintage set up also. But for now I'll have to stick with my AVR and enjoy the Music and an occasional Movie. As long as I enjoy and I'm happy with what I hear is all that matters.

Now your getting it.

We're all at different stages of craziness here, some have completely lost their minds and the rest are on their way lol. The rabbit hole runs deep if you're willing to spelunk it's depths.