• 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

Old speakers with high quality AVR

GChief said:
Nope
That’s the great thing about being in this hobby now. I can try them in my space with my system and send them back if I don’t like them :D
Click to expand...

I just went through that. I replaced my 2000 Soliloquy 6.3's with brand new $1k custom finish speakers. Maybe not a fair comparison because the Soliloquy's were $3k in period, but the new speakers are very highly regarded and I was hoping for more clarity and refined high-end (tweeter) and didn't care about bass output (because I use a sub for low frequencies).

I'm not going to say what the new speakers were because the vendor was great to work with and spent a lot of time on the phone trying to help get the best out of them -- and I don't want to to criticisize a brand many love -- but the short story is that I ended up sending them back. It was a major hassle to re-triple box them, and I really wanted to keep them, but the old speakers just sounded better even in the tweeter, where I really expected the new speaker to trounce it.

None of this is a referendum on old versus new. Neither presumption, "newer is better" or 'vintage is better" is universally true, it will always come down to comparison of individual speakers -- I just wish there were a lot more of those (direct comparison of old speakers versus new speakers -- I searched quite a bit and couldn't find almost any real-world comparisons).
 
Last edited:
peterp1 said:
I just went through that. I replaced my 2000 Soliloquy 6.3's with brand new $1k custom finish speakers. Maybe not a fair comparison because the Soliloquy's were $3k in period, but the new speakers are very highly regarded and I was hoping for more clarity and refined high-end (tweeter) and didn't care about bass output (because I use a sub for low frequencies).

I'm not going to say what the new speakers were because the vendor was great to work with and spent a lot of time on the phone trying to help get the best out of them -- so I don't want to to trash a brand many love -- but the short story is that I ended up sending them back. It was a major hassle to re-triple box them, and I really wanted to keep them, but the old speakers just sounded better even in the tweeter, where I really expected the new speaker to trounce it.

None of this is a referendum on old versus new. Neither presumption, "newer is better" or 'vintage is better" is universally true, it will always come down to comparison of individual speakers -- I just wish there were a lot more of those (old speakers versus new speakers -- I searched quite a bit and couldn't find almost any real-world comparisons).
Click to expand...
These won’t be replacing anything. My amp that always gets put back in and stays the longest is only 6ish WPC. Right now because of space limitations it driving either KG4’s or ADS L710’s. My daughter currently has the KG4’s and the ADS’s will go in the GF’s office. Now that I have the room, well why not :D
 
I have a 90s Sony 330ES amp that blows me away with its power and clarity. I run it through a 70s Marantz 3200 Pre and 60s KLH 6s..... that were rebuilt with modern foam and fresh caps. I have a 2 year old Marantz 4K AVR that uses modern Polks for front and center channels with Minimus 7Ws for years.

Both new and vintage has a place.
 
Oh, and IMO far far too many opinions about vintage speakers are formed from listening to them with ancient caps. Now not every speaker will change a lot from fresh caps but judging them when they are not sounding like they did when they were new is rather silly.
 
The easy assumption that old tweeters were inferior and new tweeters are better rests on two problematic claims: that greater dispersion is better and that greater high frequency extension is supremely important.
If you are having a cocktail party, the point of which is for all your guests to be astonished at your systems high end, maybe the first claim is correct. But that isn't how anyone listens seriously - most of us sit or stand in one location, presumably the sweet spot - and it isn't a cocktail party anyone wants to go to (or they will go thought all your booze trying to make up for having to listen to all that crap). Dispersion is a tricky thing - wall reflections can help the spaciousness of sound, but it can also create frequency anomolies when the broad dispersion of the tiny tweeter tries to mesh with the much narrower dispersion of the midrange or woofer at the upper part of its range. So a cone may be easier to integrate in terms of polar response.
As for the second, it would be best if your cocktail party had very young guests - not above the drinking age (which might cause legal problems). While a case can be made that ultra sonics can influence the audible range, for most of us who are past the teens or early twenties, the upper range of our hearing starts to disappear. I used to be able to hear 20 KHz, but cannot any more, so the apparent virtues of tweeters that go out that far are lost on me. Meanwhile, the awkardness of the transition to a small dome from what is usually a cone, but regardless of what it is, it is much bigger, are pretty aparent.
Good sound is good sound. Old or new, and there are examples of both.
 
Last edited:
Seems like a read something about a 40 year old AMP vs a new $3000.00 AVR and the old one blew it away..I'll see if I can find it
 
CJ Payne said:
Yes it is indeed difficult to compare dollars to dollars, that's why I didn't really get too into that subject. I think it's a fairly moot discussion anyway to say "Newer is better". Better is not a mathematical expression. There's good and not good. There certainly is a threshold when crossed most people will say "Those speakers sound terrible" or "Now those speakers actually do sound better". In fact those Sansui SP1500's were the speaker that my wife said, "Ok, you're right, I can hear the difference. They actually do sound better" and we've had speakers since then that are considered "better" than those and I can attest they sound better to me.

But a blanket statement like "Newer is better" is silly. You can sit in front of a new pair of high end speakers and say WOW, they sound amazing! And you can sit in front of a very old pair of high end speakers and say WOW, they sound amazing! A new Dennon amp, an old Fisher...a new Ortofon cartridge, an old Shure V15 iii...

I pretty much stand by the statement that technology hasn't made anything "sound better" par set, but has mostly made it smaller and more reliable. Subwoofer/Satalite systems taking over for big box speakers is a good example. It probably has lowered the consumer price too, with CNC routers and more durable drivers, manufacturing etc; but I've heard the surround sound crap Klipsch and Polk are still peddling at Best Buy and they are not high end! Modern cheap is still cheap. And like I said, having a big amazing sound system just isn't as cool on the mass consumer level as it was. Convenience requires small packages, and small packages just can't move air the way an Altec 19 can.

In fact sacrificing sound quality for convenience goes all the way back to switching from 78 rpm to 45 and 33 1/3 in the 50's. Or the invention of the phonograph because it's smaller and cheaper than hiring a band to come play in your living room! :bigok:
Click to expand...
Technology by itself may not have made things better but our understanding of acoustics certainly has. Define your requirements for speaker performance and by any measure including those Best Buy Polks, speakers today are generally cheaper and better than Old Gen speakers.
 
Having just been very impressed by the little Andrew Jones Pioneers, I'm happy to admit that new (or not ancient) speakers can have a lot going for them. But dollar for dollar, often you can do better with older speakers, especially if they are given to you.
And tastes differ, both in terms of sound and in terms of looks. If I had a limited budget (and yes, I do) I would probably end up buying older. Black wood grain vinyl is just depressing, and who wants that from what is supposed to be a source of pleasure?
 
Nat said:
Black wood grain vinyl is just depressing, and who wants that from what is supposed to be a source of pleasure?
Click to expand...

BINGO. Two things gross me out. Black wood (or vinyl) and real wood veneer with so much poly that it looks like plastic.....
 
GChief said:
These won’t be replacing anything. My amp that always gets put back in and stays the longest is only 6ish WPC. Right now because of space limitations it driving either KG4’s or ADS L710’s. My daughter currently has the KG4’s and the ADS’s will go in the GF’s office. Now that I have the room, well why not :D
Click to expand...

Hopefully you'll compare the Tekton Perfect SET against the ADS and KG4's. Would love to hear what you find. The Tekton's are probably more expensive in addition to being new vs vintage, so seems likely they will sound much better. You'll have more TPC (tweeters per channel :)) than you have WPC (watts per channel), so you aren't likely to have the tweeter disappointment I had. I'm packing a bone-crushing 13 wpc :) in my system.
 
Nat said:
Having just been very impressed by the little Andrew Jones Pioneers, I'm happy to admit that new (or not ancient) speakers can have a lot going for them. But dollar for dollar, often you can do better with older speakers, especially if they are given to you.
And tastes differ, both in terms of sound and in terms of looks. If I had a limited budget (and yes, I do) I would probably end up buying older. Black wood grain vinyl is just depressing, and who wants that from what is supposed to be a source of pleasure?
Click to expand...
Ok. I just read through this whole thread.
I'm identifying with this statement.
Currently I am building a older kenwood system. Its a system using all 70's components.

What do like about the system im putting together?
I like the way the lights glow
I like the craftsmanship of the aluminum face
I like the heavy click click of the switches
i hope you guys can relate

so heres the thing about the speakers
I want my speakers to be mid to late 70's to be period correct with my system.
I personally think if I put a new speaker with my old 70's kenwood system it will just look dumb.
So while the sound quality can be argued sometimes there is more to speakers then sound.
I would be willing to sacrifice some sound quality in order to make the system look like it fits together.
 
The top end Kenwood speakers are well regarded. They are very well made, sound good, and are lovely, but they are rare, at least in the US. On the other hand, because people so often dismiss non Yamaha speakers as Kabuki, if you can find some, they might be affordable (which something like the NS 1000 is not).
 
Snook hansel said:
I didn't say I wanted them. I was just answering a question. I'm past that.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with wanting what you want. The usual suspects always pop up in any thread that asks about vintage items and trashes them. Just ignore them.
 
Snook hansel said:
Ka7300 i would love a good set of kenwoods to go with my system preferably but would not turn away from other brands
Click to expand...

I have heard a ton of vintage speakers but never any Kenwoods. Some brands I have heard from the same era that I like are a lot of Polks, Marantz Imperial 5,6s (not 7s) and any of the HD series. KLH 6s and 5s. Realistic Nova 6s, 7Bs, 8Bs. Large and small Advents, but the small Advents only have a mediocre vinyl wrapped cabinet. Pioneer HPM series. They all sound pretty good but to really hear them at their best, recapping them is always a good idea. Sometimes it makes little to no difference and sometimes it makes a noticeable one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom