Vintage Gear vs Modern Gear. Is new any better than old?
- Thread starter BilboBaggins
- Start date
- Status
OMGCat!
Super Member
I very much agree that circuit design has taken leaps in the past few years. It really is ludicrous to think that we've been stagnant or even gone backward in that regard.
What we do lack is the Cold War-esque race we had in the late 70's-mid 80's that gave us some pretty amazing machines as tech advanced and manufactures wanted to make statements about what they could now do with it.
What we do lack is the Cold War-esque race we had in the late 70's-mid 80's that gave us some pretty amazing machines as tech advanced and manufactures wanted to make statements about what they could now do with it.
Superampman
AK Member
Enter the Altec 9440A which I just recently have the pleasure to experience. Untimely as it appears, it seems appropriate at this later stage to conclude the only advances available in audio sq imo/e is transparency. Good luck out-doing the Altec. Coloration is either incidental or by authorship or both by default. Transparency otoh by planned result is rather elusive. Those that have attained the closest approximations have been the most acclaimed. Realistic reproduction has always been the most desirable by the majority. Leaps since the hey days? I think not. Updated circuitry? Sure, but better sq.? Sure...a little. Guaranteed the exact same sq of current product could be achieved using components from the 80's.Oh well, another post pretty much ignored.
I prefer amps that don't sound like anything.
Enter Bob Carver
Poultrygeist
Lunatic Member
The Altec is a PA amp.
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
Despite the Stereophile null test of a carefully tweaked Carver amplifier the production T Series (for transfer function) models never achieved the same amount of null versus the target amplifier. Yes all Carver amps have their own sound. Is it the same as the Conrad Johnson target amplifier? NFW except for the one BC personally tweaked..Enter the Altec 9440A which I just recently have the pleasure to experience. Untimely as it appears, it seems appropriate at this later stage to conclude the only advances available in audio sq imo/e is transparency. Good luck out-doing the Altec. Coloration is either incidental or by authorship or both by default. Transparency otoh by planned result is rather elusive. Those that have attained the closest approximations have been the most acclaimed. Realistic reproduction has always been the most desirable by the majority. Leaps since the hey days? I think not. Updated circuitry? Sure, but better sq.? Sure...a little. Guaranteed the exact same sq of current product could be achieved using components from the 80's.
Enter Bob Carver
Not relevant. There are good PA amps that are transparent just as there are home amps that are not..
Superampman
AK Member
Right, but that was (clearly?) not my point. It is in reference to the op and your post #25, 27.
Referring to Bob's ability
Poultrygeist
Lunatic Member
Superampman
AK Member
Google loves me.Maybe I need to spend more time at the Guitar Center
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
I have no problem with BC's ability. However, the production T series amplifiers never achieved the same null as his tweaked test amplifier.
BilboBaggins
Addicted Member
I do agree that preamps can add more color to the sound output of an amp, but I'm a firm believer that the synergy between the amp and the speakers are more critical.
I did do an a/b test between three preamps using the same amp and speakers. The preamps were C32, C26, and Bose 4401. The amp was my Bose 1801, and the speakers were Kef 105s. I couldn't hear the difference at that time, but I have heard the difference with lower end pres, but that is not the intent of my thread.
The intent of this thread is me wondering if a new amp costing around $6000 would sound better than a high end amp from the 70s. But perhaps the confusion is my own in that I think an MC-2205 or a Bose 1801 amp are high end vintage amps?
If that is the case, please forgive my ignorance. The 1801 is the best sounding amp I have heard.
I did do an a/b test between three preamps using the same amp and speakers. The preamps were C32, C26, and Bose 4401. The amp was my Bose 1801, and the speakers were Kef 105s. I couldn't hear the difference at that time, but I have heard the difference with lower end pres, but that is not the intent of my thread.
The intent of this thread is me wondering if a new amp costing around $6000 would sound better than a high end amp from the 70s. But perhaps the confusion is my own in that I think an MC-2205 or a Bose 1801 amp are high end vintage amps?
If that is the case, please forgive my ignorance. The 1801 is the best sounding amp I have heard.
Superampman
AK Member
I believe you. The point I'm making is leaps and/or bounds have not been achieved since then in sq. as has been suggested. Natural, progressive, incremental increases as usual are all that have happened.
BilboBaggins
Addicted Member
I also tried an a/b test between the Bose 1801 and the MC-2205 using the Bose 4401 pre with Kef 105 speakers. The 1801 won hands down, but again, that is due to synergy between the amp and the speaker. With different speakers, I think the results could be different.
That being said, I hear a huge difference between low powered amps and high powered amps with difficult to drive speakers.
That being said, I hear a huge difference between low powered amps and high powered amps with difficult to drive speakers.
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
I don't believe anyone suggested anything else. The point is, the best of todays gear is better than the best of yesterday's. BTW, I've heard a Leach LSR&D amplifier. I liked it. I use a Marcoff PPA-1 head amp which I've been led to believe is a ripoff of a Marshall Leach design.
BilboBaggins
Addicted Member
Fortunately, I have the privilege of owning a fully restored 1801, a partially restored 1801, and a fully restored MC-2205. I do love my mc-2205, but I think the 1801 is better sounding. And more valuable on the current market, but the 2205 is definitely better built.
Last edited:
Superampman
AK Member
You can do better. The Macs are second to none in build quality. Nothing special otherwise imo. Can't speak to the Bose but I would throw your notion of synergy regarding these amps and the Kefs straight out the window. If the Bose sounds better, it's a better amp, period. The 2205 is plenty adequate to demonstrate the Kefs.
nj pheonix
Lunatic Member
I'd like to think so
BilboBaggins
Addicted Member
The Kef 105s are known to require high current amps. If you look at the damping factor between the 2205 and the 1801, the 1801 is much higher. Mind you, half the weight of the 1801 is made up of that 2 Kw transformer.
- Status