just dave
vintage rules!
What happened to em?
Vintage Gear vs Modern Gear. Is new any better than old?
- Thread starter BilboBaggins
- Start date
- Status
BilboBaggins
Addicted Member
Do you have any examples? That is what I want to hear! 
ictwoody
I like vintage gear — my preamp is from 2007.
Do you have any examples? That is what I want to hear!
Component matching is important of course... But of the gear I've owned a few stand outs could include:
• Job 225 and Pre2 combo. ($3400 retail, about $2200 used) Goldmund pedigree
• Rega Brio-R ($500 used)
• Yamaha A-S801 ($900 retail, $600 used)
• Odyssey Amps ($Varies) Symphonic Line pedigree
• Sonnetter amps
• Modern Parasound
• Vinnie Rossie / Red Wine Audio
• Croft Electronics
• Chinese tubes like Primaluna, Line Magnetic etc...
A lot of vintage speakers hold up better. Lots of value there. Especially if you are looking for big dynamics – think JBL, Altec, Tannoy etc.... But there are a lot of mid-fi new speakers that are very refined.
Modern speakers I love:
• Tekton Design ($600 and up)
• Salk Spekaers ($2k and up)
• KEF LS50's (Open box from KEF for $1199 this week!)
Ive had nice (restored) vintage pieces that include Kenwood Supreme, Mac, Marantz separates etc... And tons of the normal AK fodder from Pioneer, Harmon Kardon, Marantz, Kenwood, Yamaha etc... And I'll take modern gear at any given budget over vintage 9 out of 10 times.
- Woody
2manyspkers
Well-Known Member
Certainly there is no doubt that there have been advances in audio engineering, in some cases the "sound" the person likes is tuned to the way music sounded to them at some past point in their life, and recreating that sound, sounds the best to them.
ictwoody
I like vintage gear — my preamp is from 2007.
That's like saying you like burnt toast cause your mom always burnt the toast when you were a kid. Still doesn't make it the best. Audio isn't as subjective as people seem to make it all the time. There is definitely a measurable level of accuracy.
You can choose your flavor... Sure... But don't try and force me to eat your shitty burnt toast if you are unwilling to try mine.
- Woody
just dave
vintage rules!
All that to play a cd?For the high end......
Wilson Audio Alexx
Powered by Dan D'Agostino Momentum Monoblocs and pre-amp
And a dcs Vivaldi Stack for CD's/SACD's
I really liked your post...honest and I can even see the cogs turning in your head.
And that's the point making dreams happen.
It's there and really it takes the same dreaming and commitment.
Oh there is some very honkin transformers, that will break you back in your budget, Have you ever lifted a 400+ watt mac amp.
That commitment and filling the dreams happen when you stop buying cheaper equipment and save for what you really really want.
And that's the point making dreams happen.
It's there and really it takes the same dreaming and commitment.
Oh there is some very honkin transformers, that will break you back in your budget, Have you ever lifted a 400+ watt mac amp.
That commitment and filling the dreams happen when you stop buying cheaper equipment and save for what you really really want.
Last edited:
Let me be clear here that my system is built up as a system, so everything is important.
I was where your at 4 years ago and I was chasing a sound,the sound. So I started the jump from Sansui to McIntosh, and I always needed to buy turntables because the next one was going to sound better. Even with some of my mac equipment I was still looking at turn tables and in reality still chasing SQ. Well I found a SOTA Star deck local to me, thats a pretty big jump from my other tables at the time, though I didn't know it then.
Well I went to go buy the table, and I ended up with a SME 309 arm and got his Sumiko Blackbird. Once I got it set up and dropped the needle I knew immediately....THATS THE SOUND. I liked it so so much I wanted to get another cartridge for my Michell Focus One but didn't want to spend $1200 on a BB for that table. So I decided to get the Sumiko Blue Point EVO III, I' be damn it that cartridge didn't sound great and that table sounded as good as the SOTA deck. Something I had always avoided was to spend big money on cartridges, you know that little tinny thing. It's hard to send that much knowing it could be another amp, speakers or whatever. But from that point on I realized how important that it was to the entire system, and how much weight the front end has to carry in a system.
If you dig playing records, you can build a sweet turntable setup that will stop you from playing CDs, and your systems sound will be in another world.
2manyspkers
Well-Known Member
Just offering a rational possibility of why people prefer certain things, be it old audio equipment or old cars.
Lets use an example of old muscle cars, why do people like them over the new cars, a new Camaro, or Mustang will kick the crap out of anything made back in the hey day of muscle cars, in acceleration, handling, comfort, and virtually every other measure.
So why are people still buying those old cars? I suspect it's some of the same reasons people are buying old amplifiers.
By the way you're comparison of burnt toast, terrible example, it's something you LIKED, not eating some crappy burnt toast. Unless you like burnt toast, I certainly don't.
I do like some of the old muscle cars and some of the old audio equipment. I have some old Marantz, Sansui, Technics and Pioneer, but the main systems I listen to every day are Anthem, Sunfire, Yamaha, and NAD that are much newer and better performing equipment.
No burnt toast for me ....
the_nines
Lunatic Member
the_nines
Lunatic Member
For the high end......
Wilson Audio Alexx
Powered by Dan D'Agostino Momentum Monoblocs and pre-amp
And a dcs Vivaldi Stack for CD's/SACD's
It's a high quality CD.
ictwoody
I like vintage gear — my preamp is from 2007.
Thank you for a well written, rational response. They sometimes seem hard to come by on AK these days.
I think the muscle car analogy is a pretty good one. But I think with cars we tend to start with a visual aesthetic first — that might actually be THE similarity now that I think about it.
I think a lot of guys that love vintage gear grew up oogling big ass receivers with their gleaming faces and shiny knobs through hifi store windows. Now they can have those things they've always dreamed of. That Pioneer SX-1280 is theirs!!! Same as cars, really. I love the aesthetics of many many older cars... I was just drooling over pics of air cooled Porsche 911s of the 60's and 70's. I think they look better than their new counterparts.
The problem is that soooooo many vintage advocates deny the fact that modern counterparts are superior from a sonic perspective. A new mid-level Camaro will beat the **** out of a 1969 Camaro ZL-1... But LOTS of guys would rather have the 69. I think where the car analogy breaks down is that it's easier for car guys to admit the new stuff is better, and that they just like the old stuff. But in the audio world what bugs me is when people argue and refuse to even take a test drive in the modern world.
Setup a road course. Vintage amazing car vs. a new Mazda MX-5 Miata... It would be staggering how many times the Miata would win. The Miata is any number of modern $1k integrateds — in my opinion.
- Woody
Perhaps I need to re-word what I tried to say in my post #79 - why I asked about the definition of "better' In this case.
Limits of human hearing have been researched pretty well by now, which research standard took a sharp upward route by the advent of modern analysing instruments. With respect, faster transistors, 'better' (that undefined word again), components, etc. will not necessarily make a better amplifier possible, in terms of audio quality. As said, it was pretty possible in the 50s to design audio equipment, the difference between which and the live programme could not be readily discerned (documented reports related to such saw the light in the early days. I myself was part of such tests - proper ones.) It is in fact because of the very use of technical nonsense/snake oil audiowise, that firms sell their wares using terms which have nothing to do with audio quality. There are no substantially new achievements audiowise to take into account that could not be reached say 60 years ago. Again as said, the desired quality and reliability could be reached easier nowadays. (Also, again I limit my commnts to amplification. There are more important links in a domestic system, but development re those opens the field way out of reach for a discussion such as this.)
Audio amplifiers are not instrumentation amplifiers. Obviously modern types of the latter are better, more reliable, whatever. Specs of s.s. amplifiers are also better - the point is whether such is required for audio. Figures for distortion 100 + times better than required, damping factor into many hundreds, frequency response level to over the hill better than what is audible, fancy noise limiters equalisers ....
Yes, as JoeESP9 said earlier, engineers might interpret some of the modern attitudes negatively. We are not physicists, we need to constantly take the real world out there into consideration to be successful.
And again P.S: In my examples I talk of what is/was possible. All will know that, sadly, there are examples on the market falling quite short of what could be reached - then, and now. In that sense one obviously needs to compare the best of both eras.
Limits of human hearing have been researched pretty well by now, which research standard took a sharp upward route by the advent of modern analysing instruments. With respect, faster transistors, 'better' (that undefined word again), components, etc. will not necessarily make a better amplifier possible, in terms of audio quality. As said, it was pretty possible in the 50s to design audio equipment, the difference between which and the live programme could not be readily discerned (documented reports related to such saw the light in the early days. I myself was part of such tests - proper ones.) It is in fact because of the very use of technical nonsense/snake oil audiowise, that firms sell their wares using terms which have nothing to do with audio quality. There are no substantially new achievements audiowise to take into account that could not be reached say 60 years ago. Again as said, the desired quality and reliability could be reached easier nowadays. (Also, again I limit my commnts to amplification. There are more important links in a domestic system, but development re those opens the field way out of reach for a discussion such as this.)
Audio amplifiers are not instrumentation amplifiers. Obviously modern types of the latter are better, more reliable, whatever. Specs of s.s. amplifiers are also better - the point is whether such is required for audio. Figures for distortion 100 + times better than required, damping factor into many hundreds, frequency response level to over the hill better than what is audible, fancy noise limiters equalisers ....
Yes, as JoeESP9 said earlier, engineers might interpret some of the modern attitudes negatively. We are not physicists, we need to constantly take the real world out there into consideration to be successful.
And again P.S: In my examples I talk of what is/was possible. All will know that, sadly, there are examples on the market falling quite short of what could be reached - then, and now. In that sense one obviously needs to compare the best of both eras.
Last edited:
just dave
vintage rules!
Yes that would be ideal.
just dave
vintage rules!
I agree.I think we are at the limits of what an amp can do to improve the sound of your system and have been for awhile.Speakers are where the improvements(and source components to a lesser extent) need to be made to get us to the ultimate goal of "you are there' sound.I think that how the sound is radiated (360 degrees) from the speakers is the key,especially with acoustic instruments.
2manyspkers
Well-Known Member
I suppose it's true that many car guys will admit the new cars are superior, but I am still surprised at the number that scoff at that "new junk". Since I'm newer to the audio argument, I'll take your word that there is less acceptance that new equipment is superior to the older stuff, I see no evidence to doubt that opinion.
I have heard some of the arguments, but I decided for myself when I connected some of the 'newer" equipment that was considered higher end back 10 years ago. I saw a big jump up in quality for a similar cost to the older silver faced equipment, that's now more over priced due to a resurgence in demand rather than actual sound quality.
It does bug me that a car I really don't like like the Miata has the potential to knock off some of the great road cars of the past, but I have no doubt in the hands of a skilled driver it would be faster than more of them that I would like to see.
just dave
vintage rules!
I'm sure it sounds great but how much does it cost? Probably more than I make in a year.
just dave
vintage rules!
Just looked it up that's almost 3yrs. pay. $110,000
- Status