Paul McGowan "How Good was audio equipment of the 70s"

[JoseHH]

This issue, of course is confused by two things. The first is nostalgia, where we all tend to remember the past with fondness and through a filter that tends to remember good things and suppress the bad. As my father used to say "Tell me when the good old days were, and I'll tell you what wasn't so good about them."

The second is that it's hard to compare components built in times past for different customers and for different markets.

I agree with these two, but I believe that there is a third and very important issue. We must consider that Paul runs a business and he does, albeit politely, bias the opinion towards new gear. In other words and understadably, he has to try to sell his products.
The bottom line in my opinion, is that there is bias on both sides of the argument which interfere.

 

[StephenJK]

Oh, there's nothing wrong with trying to sell new gear!

Our entire marketing/capitalist society is based on selling people something they don't have but convincing them they desperately need it.

Let's talk about DACs. Well now, PCM at 24/192 just isn't going to cut it anymore No, sirree.

You need a DSD capable DAC that can play files that, even if you can find them won't likely make any difference to the sound.

By the time you reach that point, it's not about the sound, it's about fashion.

And that's why pickup trucks have heated seats and personalized climate control and air ride suspension. Because it matters to the people who buy it.

All that aside, I still think that with anyone seriously interested in a quality stereo system there are some serious bargains available with used gear, if you can afford it, as the fashionistas move on to the latest and greatest thing.

My entire system is used gear.

I think that as a rule, most audiophiles don't have drunken parties and wrap tin foil around the fuses for the speakers so they can play louder.

 

[Mister Pig]

So I worked in an audio store in the 80s while going to college. Our store covered the range from entry level to lower high end components. Bread and butter components were receivers, and Onkyo was the main brand we sold. There were some upper tier receivers, I remember the Kyocera and the Tandberg ones we sold. But even those receivers were outclassed by the integrated amps or separates that were sold. Even the humble Mission Cyrus One was no match in terms of sound quality for the receivers, and even though it had less rated power as a general rule it sounded more powerful. The integrated amps and separates from Amber were a step above, and even the integrated amps from Kyocera and the better Onkyo sounded quite decent.

But I worked in the time where a regular household still thought audio equipment was important. No not everyone, and there were plenty of rack systems from appliance stores being sold then. But even the entry level offerings we had from companies like TEAC or the lowest level of Onkyo sounded better than any of that stuff. To be honest the store carried a lot of brands you read about as being "the good stuff" on AK. I remember them, and while good, they were not great. DCM Time Window and Frames, Klipsch KG4 and Forte...plus their other known lines, Cerwin Vega, Mirage, Mission, KEF, Sonegraphe, Perreaux, Tandberg, and a few others. But people often did not buy the better stuff, but were happy with the $250 to $350 receiver, the $350 speakers, and the $250 table with a $59 cartridge. It was rare to sell an Onkyo M508, or a pair of Mission 780 speakers.

Was the stuff crap? No. It was reliable, it had decent sound. Of course it was not setting any kind of gold standard to be eclipsed. But it was a good value for the money, met peoples needs for music in the house, and the regular person could afford it. Is it hardcore hobbyist grade equipment. It wasn't then, and its not like a good bottle or red wine and improved as it ages.

 

[Akustic]

Every time this topic comes up I go back to the same reasoning. What hasn't improved in the last 40 years when it comes to design, engineering and material sciences?

People can love their Thorens TD-124 or Garrard 301, and there's nothing wrong with that. But there's a reason those designs aren't being made anymore, there just may be a better way.

This issue, of course is confused by two things. The first is nostalgia, where we all tend to remember the past with fondness and through a filter that tends to remember good things and suppress the bad. As my father used to say "Tell me when the good old days were, and I'll tell you what wasn't so good about them."

The second is that it's hard to compare components built in times past for different customers and for different markets.

My Sony PS-X7 turntable in 1979 was $700 (?) at Western Sound in Winnipeg. In any event, something like $2,500 today. Can I buy a turntable as good or better than the PS-X7 today for $2,500 to $3,000? Was that a high-end turntable when I bought it, or just a "better than good" turntable?

I think it's really hard to have these conversations because it turns into apples and oranges.

Now, that person I sold my Luxman C-1000 preamp and M-2000 amplifier to in 1980, and who proudly tells me he's had them in the original boxes stored away ever since - now maybe if we could hook those up we might be able to tell if there's a difference in what we can buy today for the same price.

So the conclusion is that a modern violin is superior to a Stradavarius ???
The laws of physics haven't changed and ears are unchanged ..this business is still about moving air ..
Good music well reproduced is the goal and I'll take a piece of classic high end gear every time ...

 

[Pio1980]

So the conclusion is that a modern violin is superior to a Stradavarius ???
The laws of physics haven't changed and ears are unchanged ..
Good music well reproduced is the goal and I'll take a piece of classic high end gear every time ...

Different, as all good violins. A good modern instrument is better than a "bad" Strad', a good Strad' better than a so-so or lesser modern instrument, but who knows how stable any latter day fiddle is going to be as it ages. Not all Strads make it gracefully either.

 

[Akustic]

Different, as all good violins. A good modern instrument is better than a "bad" Strad', a good Strad' better than a so-so or lesser modern instrument, but who knows how stable any latter day fiddle is going to be as it ages. Not all Strads make it gracefully either.

Just sayin ..
The presumption is that newer engineering methods will make superior music simply because they're newer ..
But they're just methods .. the goal is still the same ..
And yes, I would prefer that classic piece in new condition, after storage in a 0% humidity, air proof, lock box please ..

 

[runnin']

So the conclusion is that a modern violin is superior to a Stradavarius ???
The laws of physics haven't changed and ears are unchanged ..this business is still about moving air ..
Good music well reproduced is the goal and I'll take a piece of classic high end gear every time ...

Hold up, how did we hyper jump to violins and Stradivarius? The goals of making a Stradivarius and a receiver from the 1970's are so different as to make the comparison one of apples and oranges. Highly skilled craftsmen making violins by hand, using very specific wood and techniques and time, handed down person to person, where cost was not the object.

Versus your typical 1970's receiver, made in mass, using factories and the cheapest parts that would hit various price points, ensuring that the cheaper models sounded worse than the more expensive models. For profit, so that the stock prices would increase, pretty much the complete opposite of what Stradivarius violins represented.

Some people are responding defensively as if their way of life is being attacked. It's not. What we are talking about here are low budget products, made as cheaply as they could, so they could make a profit at the various price points. And you know what? The cheap receivers we are talking about sounded decent for the money at the time. But as you moved up the line, the sound got better. And as you got to the top of the line receivers they sounded still better. And as you got to the equivalent TOTL integrated amps, they sounded still better. And as you got to the equivalent separate amps and preamps, they sounded still better.

This is just the way that economics and capitalism works. You don't get the very best from a company unless you are willing to lay out bigger bucks. So the mass market stuff that sold by the millions, and I mean under 300 or 350 or so, sounded decent, but certainly it could be improved on. Paul, as someone who lives on the top end of the scale with the very best sounding gear of the time, made a comparison that was off the cuff, from the hip. And from that point of view, the top of the line stuff vs the budget receiver that sold by the millions, there was a big gap in quality. That may hurt some feelings around here. But offended feelings do not rearrange the facts of the situation.

There has always been entry level, better than entry level and so on. No company was giving you their very best sounding stuff at the lower end of their line up in the 1970s, because they wanted to make more money, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[NH-MAN]

The cheap receivers we are talking about sounded decent for the money at the time. But as you moved up the line, the sound got better. And as you got to the top of the line receivers they sounded still better.

Funny how I can't count the number of times I have read on here how many times people marveled at a lowly lets say 15 wpc receiver rivaled the sound quality of their way more expensive gear. power output no, quality of sound yes. I mean lets be serious how much does it actually cost to take x signal amplify it some and send out a quality signal out the back. Not much its been done a million times, hell a phone can do it and it has to do a thousand other things as well.

 

[StephenJK]

So the conclusion is that a modern violin is superior to a Stradavarius ???
The laws of physics haven't changed and ears are unchanged ..this business is still about moving air ..
Good music well reproduced is the goal and I'll take a piece of classic high end gear every time ...

We're talking about stereo equipment, not a Stradavarius - and whether a modern one can sound the same is the topic of considerable debate. Using science and modern technology they are able to duplicate that sound.

Read about it here: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/million-dollar-strads-fall-modern-violins-blind-sound-check

The premise was that modern gear dollar for dollar could be a better value, not that classic gear wasn't worth listening to or couldn't be in some ways comparable.

But, I think your average budget stereo of yesterday wouldn't be salable today. High end stuff? Maybe, for the nostalgia types, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[runnin']

Funny how I can't count the number of times I have read on here how many times people marveled at a lowly lets say 15 wpc receiver rivaled the sound quality of their way more expensive gear. power output no, quality of sound yes. I mean lets be serious how much does it actually cost to take x signal amplify it some and send out a quality signal out the back. Not much its been done a million times, hell a phone can do it and it has to do a thousand other things as well.

And I can't count the number of times I read how many times people get blown away by modern gear over their treasured vintage pieces. I've heard it said, and I think it's true, that we tend to value and remember experiences that line up with our beliefs or views. So in this case, when we read of people's experiences that line up with ours, we tend to value and remember them over others. So it seems like most people are experiencing the same thing we are, but it's not exactly an accurate perception. But then there is Audiokarma, a forum that is based on vintage gear. If you read nothing but the Audiokarma forum, you are going to get a skewed perception of vintage audio.

The other thing that comes to mind is the volume pot. Back in the 1970's and even the 80's when i bought my first gear, the volume pot was designed to ramp up roughly 75% of unity(I'm speaking roughly here, I don't know that exact percentage) on the first 50% of the pot's movement. So by 10 o'clock on the dial, you'd be over 50% of total volume. This sounds pretty impressive but gives the false impression of much more power on tap than there actually is. I remember pushing my Proton up to 50% and I could hardly stand it. The modern volume control is much more accurate and ramps up slowly, giving you finer control across the entire range.

Also, it's funny how and when we prefer to trust our ears. Trust them when listening to a vintage receiver that's 40+ years old, but not trust our ears when comparing to new gear. It sounds different, but we choose to prefer the old stuff that is probably running out of spec, and not even sounding like it once did. When I first compared my old Sansui 4000 to my Onkyo TX SR876, I thought the Sansui sounded better. But once I adjusted to its sound, I realized that the Onkyo had a far better noise floor and air between the instruments, and much better volume implementation. Also I realized that the $800 Paradigm Monitor speakers I had were holding me back, and they were from 2003!

Speakers that are from the 70's or early 80's, unless they are good stuff and not entry level or budget models(like the crappy Boston Acoustic A100 for instance) are going to be not trustworthy to compare anything on. The crossover components were just not meant to last 30+ years. And they didn't even have the capacity to handle the detail and resolution of modern recordings. They may sound good(or trick our ears) but once you get accustomed to really good sound quality, they simply don't hold up.

 

[GordonW]

So the conclusion is that a modern violin is superior to a Stradavarius ???
The laws of physics haven't changed and ears are unchanged ..this business is still about moving air ..
Good music well reproduced is the goal and I'll take a piece of classic high end gear every time ...

By the time the Stradavarius instruments were being made- the technology of making violins was very mature and very well known.

The same can NOT be said, for ESPECIALLY solid state gear in the 1970s. Read the technical journals of the time- there were all sorts of known problems that did NOT have "perfect solutions" yet.

Over the last 40 years since then- especially with the advent of reliable, consistent, accurate computer modelling and electronic measurement equipment, and a lot more research and development- the technology is MUCH more mature. Which means that things CAN be much more reliable, better sounding, and resistant to atypical loading and usage conditions than was possible, even for the best gear, 40 years ago. It's just a matter of whether you're willing to pay for the quality.

Speaking of quality- and more importantly, value- if you scale the price of a typical mid-grade receiver such as a mid-power Marantz or Pioneer or the like- they were around $250.00 and up- in the 1970s. Scaling for inflation- that same $250.00 is equivalent to nearly $1200.00 today! Spend $1200.00 on a piece of equipment- and it has the likely potential, if you choose at all wisely, to just wipe the floor with the typical 1970's receiver...

Regards,
Gordon.

 

[runnin']

Post deleted, my mistake on a double post.

 

[GyroTuner]

This is just the way that economics and capitalism works. You don't get the very best from a company unless you are willing to lay out bigger bucks. So the mass market stuff that sold by the millions, and I mean under 300 or 350 or so, sounded decent, but certainly it could be improved on. Paul, as someone who lives on the top end of the scale with the very best sounding gear of the time, made a comparison that was off the cuff, from the hip. And from that point of view, the top of the line stuff vs the budget receiver that sold by the millions, there was a big gap in quality. That may hurt some feelings around here. But offended feelings do not rearrange the facts of the situation.

There has always been entry level, better than entry level and so on. No company was giving you their very best sounding stuff at the lower end of their line up in the 1970s, because they wanted to make more money, and there's nothing wrong with that.

It seems that the argument about the sound differences between vintage and modern gear can go on forever - with opinions on both side of the fence.

However, because you brought up entry level, it's interesting to compare not just yesterday to today, but also to compare today to today.

Specifically, compare the "name brand" entry level of today to the "no-name" generic entry level. For example, because this thread is about PS Audio - look at the insides of the PS Audio Sprout, their BOTL product, a $700 integrated that puts out 50 wpc. What advantage does it have over a generic Class D board amp that you can buy from any number of off-shore sources for less than $100? The board inside might even be available at Parts Express. I know there are some advantages to paying up - two big ones are customer support and the fact you are putting money into the U. S. economy - but from a strict sound quality perspective there are probably not many advantages, at least not enough to justify the price difference.

Even more importantly, it seems difficult today for new products to capture the imagination of consumers. In the old days, if you bought an amp made by McIntosh, Sansui, Marantz, Kenwood, etc., you owned something unique and original - something cool. You couldn't buy something for 1/10 the price that was almost the same. That's one thing that's missing from new audio products that should at least partially explain the interest in vintage audio, even to those who think the sound quality of vintage gear is inferior.

 

[runnin']

Today's manufacturing scene is light years different from what it was in the 1970's. China, computer engineering, op amps, surface mount technology plus probably several things I know nothing about have completely transformed the game. It's like comparing the 1972 Mustang to the 2020 Mustang. Things can be made cheaper, better and faster. Which is why one can buy a generic class D board amp, or a thousand other such items which simply weren't available back then. Apples to oranges?

I know relatively nothing about class D boards and to compare one to the other, with regulators, diodes, and the like, would be a fool's errand for me. I am not here to defend PS Audio, but I don't really think this thread is about the company. I may be wrong. I suspect that PS Audio has a sound that they engineer into their stuff, a generic board wouldn't.

As far as capturing the imagination of consumers, those days are long gone, the 70's was considered the golden age of audio for a reason. Today, audio fans were a dying breed. The creation of the headphone crowd may have saved it.

 

[JoeESP9]

Re headphones: I'm continually amazed by the way JQ Public listens to music on their ear buds. Everyone who posts here knows that most music is in stereo. Most earbud users don't know that stereo requires a left and right channel. They haven't bothered reading the labels on their own earbuds. Quite a few of them use only one "bud". They never know that they're missing half the music.

I mentioned this to my next door neighbor and he had no idea that stereo requires at least two channels. Also he had no idea his earbuds are marked L and R..

OTOH: I've noticed that a lot of modern music has very little to no stereo effect.

 

[Akustic]

Today's manufacturing scene is light years different from what it was in the 1970's. China, computer engineering, op amps, surface mount technology plus probably several things I know nothing about have completely transformed the game. It's like comparing the 1972 Mustang to the 2020 Mustang. Things can be made cheaper, better and faster. Which is why one can buy a generic class D board amp, or a thousand other such items which simply weren't available back then. Apples to oranges?

I know relatively nothing about class D boards and to compare one to the other, with regulators, diodes, and the like, would be a fool's errand for me. I am not here to defend PS Audio, but I don't really think this thread is about the company. I may be wrong. I suspect that PS Audio has a sound that they engineer into their stuff, a generic board wouldn't.

As far as capturing the imagination of consumers, those days are long gone, the 70's was considered the golden age of audio for a reason. Today, audio fans were a dying breed. The creation of the headphone crowd may have saved it.

But do they sound better than earlier technologies well executed ??
That's the point of the exercise ..
But even I have to admit that things have improved significantly since those old wind up devices with their horns attached to the arm which I listened to when I was young ..
Victrolas .. awful sounding things, but they were fun to wind up ..

 

[GChief]

Oh, there's nothing wrong with trying to sell new gear!

Our entire marketing/capitalist society is based on selling people something they don't have but convincing them they desperately need it.

Let's talk about DACs. Well now, PCM at 24/192 just isn't going to cut it anymore No, sirree.

You need a DSD capable DAC that can play files that, even if you can find them won't likely make any difference to the sound.

By the time you reach that point, it's not about the sound, it's about fashion.

And that's why pickup trucks have heated seats and personalized climate control and air ride suspension. Because it matters to the people who buy it.

All that aside, I still think that with anyone seriously interested in a quality stereo system there are some serious bargains available with used gear, if you can afford it, as the fashionistas move on to the latest and greatest thing.

My entire system is used gear.

I think that as a rule, most audiophiles don't have drunken parties and wrap tin foil around the fuses for the speakers so they can play louder.

That was the best one of these I have seen in awhile... thank you!!

 

[runnin']

Re headphones: I'm continually amazed by the way JQ Public listens to music on their ear buds. Everyone who posts here knows that most music is in stereo. Most earbud users don't know that stereo requires a left and right channel. They haven't bothered reading the labels on their own earbuds. Quite a few of them use only one "bud". They never know that they're missing half the music.s earbuds are marked L and R..

OTOH: I've noticed that a lot of modernmusic has very little to no stereo effect.

You would be surprised about the headphone crowd. Cavelli, iFi, Topping, Schiit, Audioquest, Monoprice, Audio GD, THX and others all seem to be thriving by making entire lines of standalone headphone amps. They wouldn’t be selling all those products if their wasn’t interest in quality headphone sound.

There are even more headphone manufacturers, all thriving. There will always be the earbuds, but I’m thankful for them. Their sound quality is so dreadful that when someone experiences some decent headphones for the first time, it’s an experience they’ll never forget.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

Another thing which Paul McGowan likely does not take into consideration. The Japanese makers best products often didn't get exported, they made high end lines most manufacturers didn't export outside of Asia or few other countries. There's brands who made things I was never wild about in terms of what they brought to the USA, who made some Japanese Domestic Market high end statement items, which I'd love to hear. The few of such which I've had any chance to see and hear, were in many cases the opposite of what that brand usually was in the USA. Examples of this. Pioneer Exclusive, Yamaha's GT 2000 turntable.

 

[BMWCCA]

US-made gear from the '70s was so good, some of us are still using it today.

Others covet it and watch the prices soar on auction sites.