• 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

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

It is most wonderful that those that don't have the really good gear believe their gear sounds excellent. This makes it easy for them to collect whatever they want, leaves the vintage top gear for others and it seems everyone is happy.

In a thread about what is important for your garage system, my answer was remote control. I have a plastic, three-piece set of boxes on top of a cabinet that does the sound for the garage. It is more than I have to have because I don't listen seriously out there. I'm working on stuff, not listening, just enjoying the music. Easy to enjoy any level of gear but there are definite improvements going up the ladder to gear that is generally considered great sounding. And since there are different flavors at that level, too, there is some to like more than others, just as with the more mundane silver gear.

Is it the lack of knowledge about this better gear, the lack of funds to acquire it, the unknown landscape of high performance audio and the extra gear required or just more satisfaction in obtaining another Pio/Mar/Sui units without paying the Tax that is the reason for folks sticking to the vintage silver? I don't know, but glad everyone is happy with most of what they have. Some of the units listed as great would not drive some of my speakers but they would be excellent for a different pair, a bookshelf speaker, remember a bookshelf speaker is up to 1'x1'x2' not some crappy little bookshelf speaker sized like today's models, AR-5 sized, not EPI M50s which also qualify.
 
I think it's a lack of desire. And satisfaction and appreciation with what's on the shelf at hand. I my case audio is the least expensive of my many hobbies. It will most likely stay way. I went with 30/50 watt units because the 100 watt popular midline units that came through didn't sound any better. And my speakers don't need them. So unless a newer or better unit comes along that justifies it's price in the context of what I want from audio in general I won't be stepping up to one of those "hugely better "units. But I am curious.
I haven't heard enough top bracket units to know if I would even like it in the house. And none actually "in" the house.
I do accept that if I were to get better "everything" it will most likely sound better to me. But I have no plans of going for the whole buffalo at this time.
The only reason I would change is to get a sharper sound, as in a more focused sound image. Such as a picture from one camera to the next. This doesn't mean strip out the signature sound of a good unit for the sake of sterility. If that were the ultimate objective and were it to be met would all amps not sound the same?
 
Mister Pig said:
Hook up those Kenwood and Pioneer receivers to vintage Apogee Scintillia, Acoustat 1+1, Martin Logan CLS, Infinity Kappa 9, early Thiel, or Celestion SL 600. You will find out what the build quality is in anywhere from 2 weeks to 6 months. Heck hook up a Kenwood L series amp, or Yamaha M series amp, and you are going to get the same result, but closer to the 6 month mark.

Hook up an 80's or 90's era PS Audio amp to those same speakers, and you get different results. There is a different level of build and performance to those early American amplification companies like PS Audio, PSE, Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, Bedini, and so on and so forth.

Nothing wrong with liking a nice mid tier receiver. Lets just not pretend its something different than what it is.

Cheers
Mister Pig
Click to expand...

Big issue here, those are known to require certain separate amplification. Those loudspeakers are owned and used by a small minority of audio users, and are upper end. I'd rather have a good, well made, very efficient loudspeaker which is easy to drive, and can work in the space I have available, and can be driven with a 50 watt amplifier than a big behemoth amplifier which takes 2 people to move. Your post is a good one. That gear is great for those who have the space, the budget, the desire for, and ability to integrate such speaker systems into their homes and can deal with such loudspeakers in their environments. My real world is very difficult. And most of my listening is done near field, in smaller rooms. Many of us are in between the two extremes. YMMV. My amplifiers and even receivers must also be locally or area repairable within one hour drive in Eastern Tennessee. Which also rules out most of those makes you mention. I love them and admire them. You have many good points here to say, they're very well reasoned. But those speakers and amplifiers are also very much, unique, specialist items. Used by a very small subset of users.
 
There is so much gear made since the late sixties, the only limiting factor is the lack of knowledge by the individual person. Yes they made a larger amount of better sounding equipment but the cost of doing so increased and so they have to sell more inferior equipment to be able to offer something more substantial at a much higher price. The ratio of crap versus substantial increased as time went on. The real situation is that too many people don’t know enough to make an educated decision and rely on a time period when most equipment sounded good. There are pieces of ES equipment made in the eighties by Sony and Elite by Pioneer in the nineties to include R series by Luxman in the nineties that sound just as good as seventies equipment if not better. There are a few AVR’s made by Sony and Pioneer in the early nineties that sound just as good as any thing previously made prior to that. But the real situation is what a person can compare their personal experiences to...

Then of course....all equipment can be improved with the right amount of knowledge about the subject. With a general lack of knowledge comes assumptions !!!!
 
Djcoolray said:
There is so much gear made since the late sixties, the only limiting factor is the lack of knowledge by the individual person. Yes they made a larger amount of better sounding equipment but the cost of doing so increased and so they have to sell more inferior equipment to be able to offer something more substantial at a much higher price. The ratio of crap versus substantial increased as time went on. The real situation is that too many people don’t know enough to make an educated decision and rely on a time period when most equipment sounded good. There are pieces of ES equipment made in the eighties by Sony and Elite by Pioneer in the nineties to include R series by Luxman in the nineties that sound just as good as seventies equipment if not better. There are a few AVR’s made by Sony and Pioneer in the early nineties that sound just as good as any thing previously made prior to that. But the real situation is what a person can compare their personal experiences to...

Then of course....all equipment can be improved with the right amount of knowledge about the subject. With a general lack of knowledge comes assumptions !!!!
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
This thread disappoints me on so many levels.

My man @superdog said it best a page back. Go back and read his post.

I have McIntosh Line Array XRT20's that I have no business owning, honestly. They bring me a level of sound I heretofore did not experience.

With that said, my trusty AU-G99X Sansui has also brought me pleasure. Hell, my GE boombox when I was 12 topped them all.

Silver faced receivers sound fantastic for all but the most demanding of listeners. There is better, there is worse.

Why do some want to overstate the capabilities of machines built 40 years ago, many still working just fine, and why do those who can afford much better get so bent out of shape due to some hyperbolic statement from the proles??

We've beaten this sad topic to death, with the usual white knights in both camps. Shuddup and spin some damn tunes, already.
 
onwardjames said:
This thread disappoints me on so many levels.

My man @superdog said it best a page back. Go back and read his post.

I have McIntosh Line Array XRT20's that I have no business owning, honestly. They bring me a level of sound I heretofore did not experience.

With that said, my trusty AU-G99X Sansui has also brought me pleasure. Hell, my GE boombox when I was 12 topped them all.

Silver faced receivers sound fantastic for all but the most demanding of listeners. There is better, there is worse.

Why do some want to overstate the capabilities of machines built 40 years ago, many still working just fine, and why do those who can afford much better get so bent out of shape due to some hyperbolic statement from the proles??

We've beaten this sad topic to death, with the usual white knights in both camps. Shuddup and spin some damn tunes, already.
Click to expand...

I agree with this and will also add that I enjoy listening to Paul talk on his podcast and think that his off of hand comment against (I think) Kenwood and Pioneer really just meant BOTL gear and for some reason these two brands came to mind.
Really, if he didn't mention particular brands a lot of the same folks pissed at him right now would be using this very same episode to say that even a fancy pants Hi-Fi brand CEO thinks old gear is still good and relevant.

If you enjoy your gear just be happy with it. There is always going to be better and worse out there no matter how much or how little you spend.
I spent several hours at a hi-fi shop in San Diego this weekend listening to a few systems with one approaching the $100k mark. Very fun, and I was pleased that (to my ears) my much more modest system really holds its own in the highs and mids. The low end is another story and mine sounds dreadful comparatively so I've got something else to aim for now.
 
I'm not sure what's happening here? Is this basically a thread about how some stuff is better than other stuff for logical reasons, but the people with the prior stuff are all like "BUT I LIKE MY STUFF, NOTHING CAN BE BETTER".

I like my stuff, but I put modest means into this and know I don't have anywhere near the best kit .
 
I don't need some of the rather pricey gear that I own to enjoy music. Nor can I absolutely claim that I always enjoy it more on my main rig. I quite enjoy the Sangean radio in my en suite often. However, I do usually enjoy the main rig more, and is where I usually listen. I don't feel any more need to apologize for that than do those of you who prefer something from the silver seventies. Most of us have a good enough level that generally varies based on the listener's experience. I've been somewhat lucky to have run across the opportunities to hear a lot of gear in the past, and to listen and use equipment out of my financial reach at the time. And for thousands of hours.

So when I was finally able to spend a little more, I bought based on my experience, as do we all. I love the sound quality I now enjoy. It isn't the best I've ever heard but it does everything I want it to do effortlessly at a significantly lower cost than those I've heard which bettered it. I've reached my good enough level. The thing is... I've reached it several times previously. In 1978 that included a Kenwood receiver and Pioneer speakers. Exposure kept the bar rising, but I think I'm done this time. My system still impresses me often with its resolution, and puts a big smile on my face. If yours also does that for you, then let's just be happy for one another, and leave it at that.
 
musichal said:
I don't need some of the rather pricey gear that I own to enjoy music. Nor can I absolutely claim that I always enjoy it more on my main rig. I quite enjoy the Sangean radio in my en suite often. However, I do usually enjoy the main rig more, and is where I usually listen. I don't feel any more need to apologize for that than do those of you who prefer something from the silver seventies. Most of us have a good enough level that generally varies based on the listener's experience. I've been somewhat lucky to have run across the opportunities to hear a lot of gear in the past, and to listen and use equipment out of my financial reach at the time. And for thousands of hours.

So when I was finally able to spend a little more, I bought based on my experience, as do we all. I love the sound quality I now enjoy. It isn't the best I've ever heard but it does everything I want it to do effortlessly at a significantly lower cost than those I've heard which bettered it. I've reached my good enough level. The thing is... I've reached it several times previously. In 1978 that included a Kenwood receiver and Pioneer speakers. Exposure kept the bar rising, but I think I'm done this time. My system still impresses me often with its resolution, and puts a big smile on my face. If yours also does that for you, then let's just be happy for one another, and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
If it's still serving up surprises it sounds like the honeymoon will go on for a while longer.
 
Didn’t listen to the podcast, but have read the thread and here's my only take. What's perhaps missing, and what many took offense to, was not that there's better gear out there, or a closer reality, etc. What appears wasn't stated is that Pioneer, Kenwood, Sansui, Technics, Marantz, etc brought “a” level of hifi “to the masses” and are being kicked as being garbage. While they made some excellent gear, and could have made the best with their resources, that wasn't their business model.

While the high end gear may very well bring that added realism, sound, whatever to podcaster wanted to state, if it couldn't really be attained by the general public, then what good was it?

Perhaps the real issue (wild conjecture here now) is that he's trying to capture the dollars that the new “reminiscing” generation has to spend on audio, so feels he has to berate the quality of the gear that the “reminiscers” remember and are searching for. I remember going through the catalogs and dreaming of some of the bigger stuff that could be had, but there was no way I could afford. So now, I can afford that gear I wanted, even if subjectively I can also afford the even higher end gear now.

Not sure that makes sense, but it does to me anyway.
 
quiet said:
index.php
Click to expand...

I have to admit, that is one of the best lit-up setups I have seen on AK. Really classy cabinet too.

:)
 
onwardjames said:
I have McIntosh Line Array XRT20's that I have no business owning, honestly. They bring me a level of sound I heretofore did not experience.

With that said, my trusty AU-G99X Sansui has also brought me pleasure. Hell, my GE boombox when I was 12 topped them all.

Silver faced receivers sound fantastic for all but the most demanding of listeners. There is better, there is worse.

Why do some want to overstate the capabilities of machines built 40 years ago, many still working just fine, and why do those who can afford much better get so bent out of shape due to some hyperbolic statement from the proles??

We've beaten this sad topic to death, with the usual white knights in both camps. Shuddup and spin some damn tunes, already.
Click to expand...
Very good post!
 
RamblinE said:
I'm not sure what's happening here? Is this basically a thread about how some stuff is better than other stuff for logical reasons, but the people with the prior stuff are all like "BUT I LIKE MY STUFF, NOTHING CAN BE BETTER".

I like my stuff, but I put modest means into this and know I don't have anywhere near the best kit .
Click to expand...
I love love love my Technics SA Receivers and my Ohm Acoustics Speakers.....
But...
I know full well that there's several Better sounding options from the 1970's... ..
But at the prices for a Sansui 33000 22000 & Pioneer 1250-80 , 1980, and Marantz and Technics SA 1000 etc..etc..it would be a perfect case example of the Law of Diminishing returns over what I already Have & Love
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom