Vintage vs Modern Audio Gear: Which is better?

[highfigh]

Regardless of if you're buying a new turntable, repair and keep the Phillips. The 212 was a classic with excellent isolation due to the sprung suspension and belt drive. The sketchy part of that package at this point is the tonearm, which isn't especially low-friction.

If you're looking into a new turntable at a reasonable price, I would look at Rega, Pro-Ject, or Music Hall, at least as first choices. If you can get one with a decent cartridge factory-installed and aligned, that will benefit you. Most enthusiasts don't pay enough attention to matching the cartridge to the tonearm. The biggest mistakes I see are high compliance cartridges being arbitrarily installed (and not aligned) into high mass tonearms. The resulting low combined resonant frequency can be 8 Hz or lower, and can cause tracking problems as well as pulsate your woofers uncontrollably. On most audio forums, when someone asks what cartridge they should buy, fanboys blurt out their favorite brand without even asking the poor guy what tonearm he has. That's like recommending a set of wheels for someone when you have no idea what kind of car it is.

While I have always preferred belt-drive turntables, there have been good direct drive 'tables. A direct drive turntable has to have fairly high mass to achieve even a small percentage of the immunity from acoustical feedback that a modest belt drive turntable has. And although speed accuracy is a selling point for DD turntables, record eccentricities (warps, off-center holes, etc.) account for far more speed variation than any turntable mechanics can contribute. Isolation and freedom from acoustical feedback are more important.

There were many excellent vintage turntables, and I have owned a few; a Thorens TD-125, and Oracle Delphi MkII, and presently I am using a 30-year old Micro-Seiki-built Luxman PD-277, a heavy direct drive. I'm using a low mass ADC arm and vintage Adcom MM cartridge through the astonishing Jim Fosgate Signature tube phono preamp. I tend to change gear all the time, but this combo is really good. The high-compliance cartridge is a great match for the low-mass arm.

If you buy a separate cartridge, make sure you have a protractor to align it correctly in the headshell. I still have a classic Dennison Soundtractor METAL alignment tool (NOT the plastic version!) and it really makes a difference. It's especially important with a line contact stylus. Also buy a stylus pressure gauge and set the pressure a bit higher than average. If 1.25 to 2.25 grams is recommended, 1.75 to 2.00 will generally be best. Mistracking accelerates record wear.

I could keep blathering about turntables, but I am now officially off topic, plus I should put this all into an article so Gene has to pay me for it.

I don't know how much you read in other forums, but there's a lot of bad info flying around WRT tonearms, correct cartridge and turntables in general. I guess that's not really different from the days before CDs, though.

One guy saw his new Audio Technica table with the AT-95 cartridge as a fine piece of audio equipment when he complained about sibilance and edginess in one channel at the lead-out on the Barbra Streisand and Michael Jackson albums that he had cleaned before playing. Once he wrote that he used SW Arizona tap water and liquid dish soap,...... I mentioned that his cartridge is nothing special and it turns out that I should have been wearing a helmet.

He was worried that the anti-skate wasn't working properly, that it could have been the tonearm bearings- everything but the real cause.

Any opinions on Hegeman phono preamps?

 

[George Rankin]

What do you consider vintage? Over the last year I have set up a 7.1 system using B&W 802N and HTM1 for the L/C/R. I think I have a much high quality system for the money buying good used equipment vs what I would have spent for the same money on new gear.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

Never had the opportunity to hear a Hegeman phono preamp ... all I know is they were the darling of the old (no ads accepted, 6x8" format) Absolute Sound magazine (eg: Hapi One).

Broadly speaking if TAS(old) liked something it was deservedly so, although there were enough exceptions with gear I was familiar with that I could not take their rankings as gospel (and they had a tendency to love the most unreliable gear imaginable and hate the most reliable ... eg Bryston 4B). And HP held grudges, but at least he didn't hide it.

I am indebted to the old TAS of the 1970's (I subscribed, until they started accepting ads) because they taught me to always get to know the reviewer by both reading all the reviews you can, while listening to the gear as much as possible ... it has nothing to do with what you can afford, or whether you are or soon will be in the market.

It's about eventually knowing the reviewers, which meant knowing whom was likely to like what I liked, and whom was likely to like what I disliked. It's one of the most important lessons in Audio. Today, as useful as the online search has become when it comes to digging up information about gear whether common or obscure, it's too easy to equate the opinions of strangers when you should know the reviewer like the back of your hand first.

I'd say the Hegeman phono's are probably worth a listen, can't say more than that though.

__________

I see someone finally voted for the Vintage gear ... glad to see it. The best vintage equipment can definitely hold it's own today, the votes were skewed way too far in the modern camp than it deserves, in my opinion (and I voted modern, but trust me, it was not a simple choice).

Examples? Threshold 400A (Power Amp). Luxman Lab Reference Series (all), M-4000 (power amp), CL-32 (preamp), most FM tuners, QUAD ESL , Dayton-Wright, Magneplanar (electrostatic speakers), Decca Ribbon Tweeters, Thorens TD-125MKII with the SME III arm, Fidelity Research FR1 MK II moving coil cartridge, the ADC XLM Mk III magnetic cartridge, the ADC / Infinity Black Widow tonearms, the Oracle turntable(s), the Denon 103 and any of the Denon AC Direct Drive tables, Klipschorns ... I could go on. That's plenty, though, especially when you consider that almost every component on my entire list sold for no more than $1000, some of it for less than $400.

Just don't call anything made from around 1984 or newer "vintage" and for the most part, don't buy anything made from about 1982 to 1995 unless you ** know for sure ** it's worthy of your attention. The accountants stood with their boots on the necks of the engineers in those dark years (inflation of 20%, audio component prices doubled every 4 years from 1980 onwards). Run, don't walk, from that stuff.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

I don't know how much you read in other forums, but there's a lot of bad info flying around WRT tonearms, correct cartridge and turntables in general. I guess that's not really different from the days before CDs, though.

One guy saw his new Audio Technica table with the AT-95 cartridge as a fine piece of audio equipment when he complained about sibilance and edginess in one channel at the lead-out on the Barbra Streisand and Michael Jackson albums that he had cleaned before playing. Once he wrote that he used SW Arizona tap water and liquid dish soap,...... I mentioned that his cartridge is nothing special and it turns out that I should have been wearing a helmet.

He was worried that the anti-skate wasn't working properly, that it could have been the tonearm bearings- everything but the real cause.

Any opinions on Hegeman phono preamps?

God forbid we offer an opinion of anyone's sacred garden-variety audio gear. Sometimes you need a flame suit to protect you from the blow-back. Sibilance can be caused by tracking too lightly along with bad anti-skate compensation, wrong cartridge loading, a crappy cartridge, etc. Also, Barbra Streisand and Michael Jackson vocals often used a distortion-inducing device in the studio called the Aphex Aural Exciter. It adds sibilance to vocals to give them more "sizzle and bite." I bet your guy had multiple issues with his gear, his music, and possibly his personality. One of the nice things about the interwebs is you can instantly block these types.

There has always been mystery, mumbo-jumbo, ritual, and alchemy involved with turntables and cartridges. It's one category of audio where you cannot arbitrarily throw things together because so much of it is mechanical. I was deeply into it in the mid-'60s, having a turntable with multiple headshells so I could swap cartridges, replacing my headshell wires, slapping on Mortite to deaden my turntable, etc. The more you know, the more you realize how much you don't know...

I used to have conversations with Stewart Hegeman at CES many years ago. He was an intense little guy who designed some really great neutral-sounding components. His Hapi 2 preamp was really a peach. I don't know about his phono preamp, but it's probably first-rate. My Fosgate Signature was a freebee from my old friend Jim Fosgate, and it's wonderful...as is he.

 

[Cos]

This is not an easy one to answer, yes I love the new tech, HT sound formats, better TVs, apps. So for features, Modern.....but

Build Quality....Vintage

While this isn't quite a vintage example, I will go on record stating that I HATE my Marantz UD7007 Blu Ray Player.

Took it in 3 times for the same issue, loud noise when playing movies. The only way to make it stop is to push on the drive and wiggle it. I have had it to Marantz service and every time its the same issue.

Now, I still have my Sony BDP-S2000ES Blu Ray player I purchased right when Blu Ray became the standard.
1. It's build like a tank and heavy like one too with its stainless metal top
2. Has first rate video, and sound quality
3. Never had a problem with it
4. Includes 5.1 pre outs

It's slow as hell to load up movies, but right now it's my go to player even w/o DTS Lossless. I am not going to invest in another player until the newer 4k Players come out.

So my message after this long winded story, vintage seems like it is just built to last.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Barbra Streisand and Michael Jackson vocals often used a distortion-inducing device in the studio called the Aphex Aural Exciter. It adds sibilance to vocals to give them more "sizzle and bite."

I always thought that device was evidence that Satan actually exists.

 

[Sachb]

Well I've never owned a Vintage gear but i can tell u that My Uncle had one in his home which was just used for a Home decor.

That pioneer i believe was 80s or early 90s gear which was spoiled maybe because of the dust or temperature.

That Vintage gear is the Pioneer HiFi system which included 4-5 decks, like the Amp, CD player , SOurce selector, etc etc. The whole package was kept in a shoe rack like cabinet.

It was something like this with the tower speakers :

But i can tell u from my experience that sometimes older system sound good to ears because it didn't have so much processing , ulike the modern gear.

I felt that my Older Kenwood sounded better than my newer sony Dvd HiFi component system.

 

[David Harper]

In the article, I use the car analogy because it really parallels audio. To expand the thought...

In 1969 I bought a new black Mustang SportRoof with the 428 cubic inch engine and every performance option. It was unreliable, it rattled, it ran a 14-second 1/4-mile at 100 mph, and the best I got on the highway with the 3.91 Detroit Locker rear end was 17 mpg. Gross horsepower was 335, but net (the way cars are rated today) was closer to 285 HP.

I now drive a black Corvette Z06, which is also 428 cubic inches (rounded up), slightly modded to 525 HP, and it runs an 11.6 1/4-mile at 125 mph and gets 30-34 mpg at a steady 75 mph. I have had not a single issue in 32,000 miles; the point at which my vintage muscle cars were spent basket cases and pushing oil.

Okay, this is the smallest sample size, but it's typical. Vintage performance cars required constant attention and they were lucky to be as fast as a V6 Altima. I constantly hear guys in their 50s (who didn't live the muscle car era and race like I did) who brag about cross-ram wedges, Hemi Challengers, 427 Corvettes, Yenko Camaros, etc., but if you check the actual performance numbers (except maybe for the Yenko or Grand Spaulding Dodge numbers), they weren't that fast. Few stock muscle cars ran in the 13s, and even the Mustang GT350 ran a 16-flat 1/4. As a kid working as a car jockey at a Ford dealer, the GT350 didn't feel fast to me at all.

But, as with vintage audio, that doesn't mean old muscle cars weren't cool rolling works of art. I love my 1962 McIntosh separates, even though my new Lyngdorf electronics are much more accurate and enjoyable. I fully support the refurbishing of old cars as well as restoring vintage audio gear, but I don't really want to drive one or listen to them.

even worse than their mediocre acceleration was the way the old muscle cars drove,felt, and handled. I'm 63 years old and I used to drag race in the 1970's.I had a 1968 SS396 Chevelle. The suspension was horrible on those cars. And they couldn't take a corner at over 20 mph. A new Maxima would blow the doors off one of those cars, and ride and handling is night and day superior.
I owned Pioneer HPM 100 speakers at that time, perhaps the worst sounding speaker there could be.

 

[prerich]

Stock vintage vs New....New. Modified vintage vs New....depending on the vintage...Modified Vintage! Like they said in Drumline - mix a lil new school, with my old school....lets get crunk! Just like a modified muscle car that can wipe the floor with some new stuff (because they don't know the vintage car is modified with new stuff). There are some Vintage speakers - when modified that can wipe the floor with some of the newer offerings - and you may have to go into new Ferrari, or Bugatti land to beat them - in speaker terms (Magico, Wilson, MBL, Tidal). Then...you're just talking about money.

As you can tell, I'm mainly talking about speakers. Electronics are a different story - as tech generally wins in that area.

 

[KenM10759]

And I know of few vintage muscle car owners who would actually admit the full amount of money they have into the car, usually because they don't know. Of course the hundreds (or thousands) of hours of labor don't count either.

With a speaker, the only thing you can't always see is the crossover rework. There may be a lot of Dennis Murphy in it but you can't tell if it's really good stock parts/circuits if you never heard one "back in the day." An educated eye can spot a new Scanspeak driver in an old KLH speaker cabinet though.

 

[John Ruppert]

Are the glowing memories of vintage audio gear and vintage automobiles justified, or were they just mediocre machines whose performance has somehow "improved" over the decades?

Read this old-timer's assessment of both vintage muscle cars and vintage audio, based upon hands-on experience with both.

Read: Is Vintage Better than Modern for Audio Equipment?

Let us know in the discussion thread below if your still running vintage gear or if you ditched it to embrace the new. Don't forget to vote in our poll.

 

[John Ruppert]

As a long time audiophile and car buff by that I mean I'm in my mid 60's! I sincerely believe that modern equipment is so much more reliable and better sounding in general.While there is some vintage equipment which if upgraded to it's original specs would still sound wonderful, but yesterday's state of the art would not compete with today's state of the art or even in most cases today's mid-fi! Let's be realistic!

 

[prerich]

Fyi...I own heavily modified Klipsch Cornwalls. You could call them vintage, but you can't either. ALK Crossovers, Crites Tweeters, and Fostex top mounted Super tweeter. I've now keep these longer than any speaker I've owned. If you ever want to hear Cornwalls that can image...PM me.

 

[prerich]

As a long time audiophile and car buff by that I mean I'm in my mid 60's! I sincerely believe that modern equipment is so much more reliable and better sounding in general.While there is some vintage equipment which if upgraded to it's original specs would still sound wonderful, but yesterday's state of the art would not compete with today's state of the art or even in most cases today's mid-fi! Let's be realistic!

I totally agree especially in the area of amps, preamps and receivers.

However speakers - when modified beyond original specs....would you say they become new speakers? ALK, Crites, Volti, and Aletheia Audio have provide new life to Klipsch Heritage products for quite a while. Some of the mods practically make them a "new" speaker altogether. Kendrick Audio in Japan is doing the same with JBL and Yamaha NS-1000 speakers. Even the Audio Note AN/E speakers have their roots in a 1980's design from Peter Snell. You can actually mod a Snell E or E-II into an Audio Note AN/E with parts from Audio Note. This is when things get a little hairy - do you consider these modifications as just mods - or does it turn something old into something new (while validating some of the older science of people like Lansing, PWK, and Peter Snell)?

That's why I didn't answer the poll....it all depends on how you're looking at it. Electronics - yes, clearly new trumps old....but speakers can be tricky - they're one of the two things that we actually listen to (the other being the room - which we attempt to take out of the equation using room treatments and room correction).

 

[Johnny2Bad]

With regard to whether "modded" vintage gear falls into the "modern" category, there are mods that are primarily recommended or necessary due to reliability or maintenance, and there are mods that are primarily designed to modify performance. (I say "primarily" because any mod can offer both kinds of benefit, but it's the purpose of the mod that determines which category it falls into).

I don't consider caps replacements, for example, to be a Modern Modification, even though there may be performance benefits.

With modded loudspeakers, I still consider a heavily modded older speaker to be vintage if that's where it comes from ... you can make significant changes to a crossover, for example, but the caps, resistors, coils and theory were all around 50 years ago ... you haven't done anything you could not have done in 1975 if you knew what to do then. We re-coned drivers just as we do now 50 and more years ago. The big change today is we have, as mere mortals, the tools that only million dollar operations had back in the day.

But the parts, well, they were around, winding an inductor hasn't changed a bit. If you really want to, you can make your own caps, resistors and coils on your kitchen table. Not much has changed there, perhaps the most you could say is Teflon film for your caps is easier to find today.

A Klipsch or Electro-Voice crossover from that era is notable for it's robust construction, not a lack of space-age tech ... oops, I guess that was space-age tech. Okay, cellphone-age tech, then.

But, speaking of the Space Age, well, they went to the moon with slide rules. The Space Shuttle was operating into the 21st century with 80286 computers running the beast. Even the modern chip ... whether it's a computer or an op-amp or a full blown power amp module ... is a severely miniaturized version of a circuit you could build with thru-hole components if you absolutely needed to.

Modern construction techniques are cost saving but are at the same time examples of what happens when a series of refinements mean you learn what can be cut and what can't, and what the effect changes have on reliability, which results in far less robust construction.

Many people have grown up in a world where reasonably elaborate gear is considered disposable after perhaps five years, but I was in High School in the 70's where if you presented perhaps 80% of the products available today to people they would laugh you out of the room with regard to reliability. If you bought a broom in 1975 you expected it to last until your grandkids used it to sweep the garage at the estate sale.

There are also a lot of dirty little secrets about modern manufacturing compared to the old ways. You see constant pushes today to move to modern, computer controlled, high technology solutions to problems, but generally the solutions are the problems. The environmental impact of manufacturing today's "high tech" goods are staggering, yet we are sold on the environmental benefit of it's use, not it's creation.

Studies are rare, mostly because it is extremely difficult to trace everything back to it's place in a rock somewhere, but there was one from the 1990's that assessed the environmental impact of the manufacture of a 386 desktop computer (no monitor, no keyboard, no mouse) and found it was identical to the manufacture of an entire automobile of 1970. Can you imagine the impact of a 2016 cellphone?

In other words there are a lot of possible definitions of the word "better".

 

[Irvrobinson]

With modded loudspeakers, I still consider a heavily modded older speaker to be vintage if that's where it comes from ... you can make significant changes to a crossover, for example, but the caps, resistors, coils and theory were all around 50 years ago ... you haven't done anything you could not have done in 1975 if you knew what to do then. We re-coned drivers just as we do now 50 and more years ago. The big change today is we have, as mere mortals, the tools that only million dollar operations had back in the day.

Yeah, but modern CAD and CNC capabilities make drivers better, cabinets better, and while basic crossover components were there in the 70s, obviously, crossover design software is also a lot better. A myriad of manufacturing technologies are also in a different league today; there weren't any Be or diamond tweeters in 1975.

But the parts, well, they were around, winding an inductor hasn't changed a bit. If you really want to, you can make your own caps, resistors and coils on your kitchen table. Not much has changed there, perhaps the most you could say is Teflon film for your caps is easier to find today.

Components are a lot more precise today than they were in 70s too.

A Klipsch or Electro-Voice crossover from that era is notable for it's robust construction, not a lack of space-age tech ... oops, I guess that was space-age tech. Okay, cellphone-age tech, then.

But, speaking of the Space Age, well, they went to the moon with slide rules. The Space Shuttle was operating into the 21st century with 80286 computers running the beast. Even the modern chip ... whether it's a computer or an op-amp or a full blown power amp module ... is a severely miniaturized version of a circuit you could build with thru-hole components if you absolutely needed to.

Now you've stretched the truth a bit. The space program used mainframe computers in the 1960s, like the IBM 360 and the CDC 6600. And I've got news for you, it's unlikely you could thru-hole an 8 billion transistor Intel Knights Landing CPU "if you absolutely needed to".

Modern construction techniques are cost saving but are at the same time examples of what happens when a series of refinements mean you learn what can be cut and what can't, and what the effect changes have on reliability, which results in far less robust construction.

Are you implying that modern electronics are less reliable than those from the 70s? Think again.

Many people have grown up in a world where reasonably elaborate gear is considered disposable after perhaps five years, but I was in High School in the 70's where if you presented perhaps 80% of the products available today to people they would laugh you out of the room with regard to reliability. If you bought a broom in 1975 you expected it to last until your grandkids used it to sweep the garage at the estate sale.

And again, think again. The broom I purchased recently is identical to what I had in the 70s, but everything else I can think of, save some appliances mixing heat and/or moisture with complex electronics, are more reliable than anything I remember from the 60s and 70s. The 70s were the bad old days in so many ways.

There are also a lot of dirty little secrets about modern manufacturing compared to the old ways. You see constant pushes today to move to modern, computer controlled, high technology solutions to problems, but generally the solutions are the problems. The environmental impact of manufacturing today's "high tech" goods are staggering, yet we are sold on the environmental benefit of it's use, not it's creation.

Baloney. Do you remember what the environment was like in the US in the 60s and 70s? Again, those were the bad old days.

Studies are rare, mostly because it is extremely difficult to trace everything back to it's place in a rock somewhere, but there was one from the 1990's that assessed the environmental impact of the manufacture of a 386 desktop computer (no monitor, no keyboard, no mouse) and found it was identical to the manufacture of an entire automobile of 1970. Can you imagine the impact of a 2016 cellphone?

In other words there are a lot of possible definitions of the word "better".

Your computer to car analogy seems impossible. Have you compared a steel mill to an IC chip or board manufacturing operation?

 

[killdozzer]

The problem is you simply don't know what this guy „knows“. When you listen to what you call hi fi it is mid fi at best.

You have to skim through this article, if for no other reason than at least to “learn” about sonic tuning of your cables and your equipment. It’s the worst kind of reiterating all the snake oil but with the voice of knowledge or more precisely “knowledge”.

But this article hits exactly my point. People are being nostalgic about the “production philosophy” and not the end specs of a product. A lot of first half of the twentieth century production had this “what is the best product I can make and still make it affordable” approach. While today it is more of “what is the absolute Ryan-air minimum of quality needed in order to push a product and not being litigated”.

Fast production is all about specs and features, specs and feature… and it should work at least as long as the warranty states, but it is mostly being regarded as tomorrow’s crap/junk/garbage/depot dweller or in best case scenario recycled raw material for the next tomorrow’s garbage.

People read this out of the product; they are on some level aware of this. And they don’t particularly like it. It is condescending; “you don’t know any better anyway, so why would we waste time and money to teach you, “this or that” is the product for you and this is the price we’d like you to pay, now buy or shut up”.

This “what is the best product I can make and still make it affordable” philosophy heavily relies on those “happy people working in bad conditions”; there was a survey in the nineteenth century where workers were being asked what they don’t like about their work place. Bad light was one of the things, but before anything was done about the issue, productivity had risen and the question was why? As it turned out, the very fact that someone asked the workers made them feel as being included/taken care of, taken seriously, important and they liked this so they were happier and worked better. Unfortunately only thing that sprung out of this is today’s mandatory team building which should instill that same feeling in workers while the light bulbs are never to be replaced anyway.

Mid twentieth audio products “treated” you as a gentleman audiophile with a little less in his pocket. Today my Yamaha has some loose space on the volume knob that you feel when changing direction (turning the volume down and suddenly starting to turn it up will show some empty room or what would you call that). As oppose to a gentleman audiophile, I read this as; you’re dumb, fat greasy piece of sh… in your track suit on the couch all day, devoid of all critical and aesthetic judgement and one of your bros is likely to poor some cheap sh… beer all over it and it goes to the depot. Any and all perfectionism is wasted on you. Or in other words “give the consumer what he wants”

Nothing can last forever, but there’s a huge difference between: “well we can at least try to make it last forever” and “meh, what the f… then, just put it together and sell it” approach.

In conclusion, audio is all about technology and today you can make equipment better than any from the past. It is simply that producers “choose” not to This is an overstatement for the sake of the joke, but in relative terms, today’s products are not as good as yesterdays. Let me just try to clarify this: in the 70’ the best you could do is grade 5, but that would be expensive so you chose to make it -4 and that was fair. Today your best is 10, but you choose to make -3 and just make a prettier ad. And this is not fair (although in some cases today’s -3 is better than yesterday’s -4, but that’s why I said in relative terms).

I think that people wrongfully ascribe this emotional response to a product as its performance and I think this is why all sentimental people will always say it used to be better. A good test for this that comes to mind is taking a shell of a legendary Marantz from the 60’ and putting today’s electronics inside. My guess is people will say: aaaah, hear that angel sound, you can’t measure it or explain it, but it is just better and that’s a fact.

I think you can’t measure it because it is not inside of the box you’re listening to, but inside your heart and mind. And I honestly think this explains the whole issue and that the mentioned test would prove this.

 

[KEW]

Are the glowing memories of vintage audio gear and vintage automobiles justified, or were they just mediocre machines whose performance has somehow "improved" over the decades?

Both!

Glowing memories were justified because the quality of what you could get then vs 5-10 years earlier was dramatically improved. That kind of progress makes for a Golden Age!

Modern gear should have at least a marginal improvement over vintage, but you can't take away my fond memories of the gear I recognized as seminal in the development of quality sound.

I love it that there is a cadre of people buying refurbed/tweaked Dynaco/Hafler ST-70's which does make for a reasonable argument that good vintage designs still have value (though I'll stick with my Denon AVR).

 

[sterling shoote]

I like how the term vintage is applied to old audio components which are on the used market for one reason or another, like the original owner passes and his adult children want to get rid of Dad's audio gear but they don't want to just toss it out.

A year or two after I purchased a Marantz 2230 Receiver back in 1973 my receiver was regarded as an antique. Now that same receiver in working order sells for more on ebay than I paid for it new over 40 years ago. Is it better than any of today's $300 dollar receivers? Its case definitely has a better look and feel; but, I don't think it performs better. It does make me wonder though how much one of these old receivers would sell for if produced today. I also wonder what my JBL L100t3's would sell for if still made today. I suppose they are not made today because few could afford them.

At any rate, I can see how the search for vintage audio components could be a very nice distraction. Some today, as I understand it, have a passion for the Sony ES components from the 1980's to the mid 1990's. I can appreciate their enthusiasm for a mint condition find from that period. It must give them great satisfaction.

 

[musichal]

I could not choose any answer from the poll. I can't afford today's high end, but I can find middlin' high vintage toys affordably. I just acquired a pair of Khorns, which I'm thoroughly enjoying, and a custom-built tube amp based on the ST-70 is even now in shipment. Beefier power tranny with 4-8-16 ohm taps, updated driver with separate tube biasing, greater cap storage and a slightly larger chassis, all for which I have highish-end hopes, and a dated old Lexicon DC-1 and feel as though my money goes further with this approach. However, I am not so delusional as to believe "it blows the crap they make today out of the water" as a few of the more rabid vintage enthusiasts seem to believe. We all pays our money and makes our choices.