Vintage vs Modern Audio Gear: Which is better?

[Fomoco69]

There was a much larger quality of performance gap between budget gear and hi-fi, 40-50 years ago. A lot of budget gear now is contending with hi-fi because it is most difficult for AI to design a flawed product. Marketers now have to essentially control (dial in the amount of quality/longevity) the quality or hold it back in which to structure different price points to reach as many economic classes as possible, without giving away the farm in the process.

Harman/JBL's budget offerings are often minor ticks away from being competitive with high-end, with the differences typically being something as ridiculous as leaving a brace out of the cabinets and using a thinner, lower quality particle board and vinyl wrapping, some cheaper wiring accommodations etc.

Modern audio is a hungry beast that needs to rely on constant sales and upgrades to feed all of the parasitic costs and minions of modern manufacturing that contribute very little value to the actual product. It's part of why we can't buy mass produced items that last 30 years anymore. Meanwhile, my Maytag washer from 1965 is still quieter than many that came after it, never goes out of balance on spin, and has no peeling paint or rust because it is clad inside and out with porcelain. I replaced a tub seal in it over 30 years ago for the cost of the seal and a special spanner to remove the reverse threaded gland nut that held it in, and I reconditioned the automatic tensioning motor mount while I was at it. I paid $75 for it used around 1988.

Sounds like the truth to me!....thanks

 

[LouVC]

Hi all, this is my first post at Audioholics. I've watched many of the YouTube videos over the years and hold Audioholics in high regard for its scientific, facts-first approach. I found this thread when reading Paul Scarpelli's article about vintage versus modern audio gear.

I grew up admiring my father's Pioneer SX-737. It was a thing of beauty, and its mechanical solidity set my expectations for what quality mechanical gear should feel like. My life-long passion for music and hi-fi gear is rooted in that receiver.

My father gave his Pioneer to my niece a few years ago, but it was too much of a dinosaur for her. When she offered it to me, I was over the moon and assumed it would take center stage in my system. But when I connected it and started listening, the romance quickly faded. Sure, it's still visually beautiful, but it's also huge, clunky, and inconvenient to operate. Then there was the surprisingly unrefined sound quality. A full restoration might improve that, but looking back I don't think the receiver's sound ever had the refinement that today's gear does. Like the antique cars that Paul Scarpelli writes about, it's a romantically stylish expression of yesteryear that in the face of modern advancements makes little practical sense anymore. I've moved on with the times. Apparently, some people are still into the experience. No shade on them; I'm happy that there are people keeping the vintage gear going. These days, I'll take a modern integrated amp, CD player, and streamer. Maybe I'd consider a vintage turntable, but I'd look at modern options first.

 

[Tankini]

Hi all, this is my first post at Audioholics. I've watched many of the YouTube videos over the years and hold Audioholics in high regard for its scientific, facts-first approach. I found this thread when reading Paul Scarpelli's article about vintage versus modern audio gear.

I grew up admiring my father's Pioneer SX-737. It was a thing of beauty, and its mechanical solidity set my expectations for what quality mechanical gear should feel like. My life-long passion for music and hi-fi gear is rooted in that receiver.

My father gave his Pioneer to my niece a few years ago, but it was too much of a dinosaur for her. When she offered it to me, I was over the moon and assumed it would take center stage in my system. But when I connected it and started listening, the romance quickly faded. Sure, it's still visually beautiful, but it's also huge, clunky, and inconvenient to operate. Then there was the surprisingly unrefined sound quality. A full restoration might improve that, but looking back I don't think the receiver's sound ever had the refinement that today's gear does. Like the antique cars that Paul Scarpelli writes about, it's a romantically stylish expression of yesteryear that by today's standards is much more of a clunky, lumbering, bulky machine than the me of today wants to use on daily basis. I've moved on with the times. Apparently, some people are still into the experience. No shade on them; I'm happy that there are people keeping the vintage gear going. These days, I'll take a modern integrated amp, CD player, and streamer. Maybe I'd consider a vintage turntable, but I'd look at modern options first.

The old analog gear with the VU meters big, beautiful silver face with the big Tuner knob that you could spin, all the switches and buttons on them they were gorgeous. Totally agree, Today's AVR, preamps, Pre-pro and processors offer so much more.

 

[isolar8001]

Still think my beloved old Luxman R117 was the culmination of everything good in high fidelity all rolled into one badass chassis....sure, there was always more expensive stuff out there, but was any of it any better ??
not really.

Luxman R-117 | Classic Receivers

At 160 watts per channel the Luxman R-117 is a monster receiver and it has the power and features to make it arguably the best receiver Luxman ever made.

classicreceivers.com

 

[LouVC]

Still think my beloved old Luxman R117 was the culmination of everything good in high fidelity all rolled into one badass chassis....sure, there was always more expensive stuff out there, but was any of it any better ??
not really.

Luxman R-117 | Classic Receivers

At 160 watts per channel the Luxman R-117 is a monster receiver and it has the power and features to make it arguably the best receiver Luxman ever made.

classicreceivers.com

I've heard a lot of praise for that Luxman series. Do you still have the R117?

 

[isolar8001]

I've heard a lot of praise for that Luxman series. Do you still have the R117?

Unfortunately no....

 

[LouVC]

Unfortunately no....

Sorry to hear it. Then again, the notion of vintage versus modern is a window that moves with time. By the time our gear's electronics start reaching the end of their expected longevity, hi-fi technology has probably progressed to the point that it makes more sense to retire that well-loved piece of equipment and explore those innovations. Some of it probably won't attract us, but some of it likely will.

At the risk of opening a can of worms, the upgrade I'm currently considering prioritizes hi-res capability. I know that humans can't hear above 20 kHz. But if a modern performance is recorded in hi-res, I'd like a system that can reproduce everything that was recorded. Maybe our ears throw away the stuff above the frequencies we can hear, or maybe there's some truth to the theories that our bodies still process those hi-res frequencies at a subtler but still meaningful level. To be clear, I'm talking about native hi-res that starts with the microphone and is preserved without degradation through the entire recording chain. I'm not talking about upsamplings of older recordings. Again, I know it's a debated topic. I just like the idea of preserving and reproducing the recording in its fullness. I'll leave it to my body to use or discard whatever frequencies it will.

Although I still use mostly physical media, I'm prioritizing equipment that's designed with streaming in mind. I have only so much space for LPs and CDs, and there are some performances that I'd want to stream occasionally but don't feel a need to own a physical copy.

 

[lovinthehd]

Sorry to hear it. Then again, the notion of vintage versus modern is a window that moves with time. By the time our gear's electronics start reaching the end of their expected longevity, hi-fi technology has probably progressed to the point that it makes more sense to retire that well-loved piece of equipment and explore those innovations. Some of it probably won't attract us, but some of it likely will.

At the risk of opening a can of worms, the upgrade I'm currently considering prioritizes hi-res capability. I know that humans can't hear above 20 kHz. But if a modern performance is recorded in hi-res, I'd like a system that can reproduce everything that was recorded. Maybe our ears throw away the stuff above the frequencies we can hear, or maybe there's some truth to the theories that our bodies still process those hi-res frequencies at a subtler but still meaningful level. To be clear, I'm talking about native hi-res that starts with the microphone and is preserved without degradation through the entire recording chain. I'm not talking about upsamplings of older recordings. Again, I know it's a debated topic. I just like the idea of preserving and reproducing the recording in its fullness.

Although I still use mostly physical media, I'm prioritizing equipment that's designed with streaming in mind. I have only so much space for LPs and CDs, and there are some performances that I'd want to stream occasionally but don't feel a need to own a physical copy.

You might consider seeing what you can "hear" with hi-res vs redbook cd (or even lossy codecs) via an abx test, software like Foobar2000 or Audacity has ability to do such. Personally I don't bother with hi-res particularly, most of mine comes on various blu-rays, but redbook cd comprises the majority of my digital collection.

 

[isolar8001]

Sorry to hear it. Then again, the notion of vintage versus modern is a window that moves with time. By the time our gear's electronics start reaching the end of their expected longevity, hi-fi technology has probably progressed to the point that it makes more sense to retire that well-loved piece of equipment and explore those innovations. Some of it probably won't attract us, but some of it likely will.

At the risk of opening a can of worms, the upgrade I'm currently considering prioritizes hi-res capability. I know that humans can't hear above 20 kHz. But if a modern performance is recorded in hi-res, I'd like a system that can reproduce everything that was recorded. Maybe our ears throw away the stuff above the frequencies we can hear, or maybe there's some truth to the theories that our bodies still process those hi-res frequencies at a subtler but still meaningful level. To be clear, I'm talking about native hi-res that starts with the microphone and is preserved without degradation through the entire recording chain. I'm not talking about upsamplings of older recordings. Again, I know it's a debated topic. I just like the idea of preserving and reproducing the recording in its fullness. I'll leave it to my body to use or discard whatever frequencies it will.

Although I still use mostly physical media, I'm prioritizing equipment that's designed with streaming in mind. I have only so much space for LPs and CDs, and there are some performances that I'd want to stream occasionally but don't feel a need to own a physical copy.

Good luck....personally I don't buy into HiRez, and I have plenty of the files to do comparisons.
And, I would rather have the silence of my thoughts than submit to streaming.

 

[KenM10759]

Owning and using a Luxman R-351 for a little while on a guest bedroom system is what spurred me onto seeking out their current product. I now own their "entry level" L-505uX Mk2 integrated amp, though probably in springtime I'll be looking to snap up one of the remaining L-509X class A-B units. Both the L-507 and L-509 have been changed to the new L-507Z and L-509Z. I expect the L-505uX Mk2 will get that upgrade sometime in 2024.

I am absolutely smitten with the quiet, powerful performance of the modern Luxman gear. I just wish it weren't quite so expensive! I gotta get it now and age out with it, as I'm about 6 years from retirement.

 

[LouVC]

Good luck....personally I don't buy into HiRez, and I have plenty of the files to do comparisons.
And, I would rather have the silence of my thoughts than submit to streaming.

My concern for hi-res came about a few days ago, after hearing a claim about hi-res being worthwhile for performances recorded natively in hi-res. I did some more research last night and learned that hi-res is more relevant for production, because it gives the production professionals more headroom for the work they do on the music. For playback, CD quality has substantial headroom beyond what we can hear. That's welcome information, because I won't mistakenly rule out a good piece of equipment because it isn't "hi-res capable."

 

[isolar8001]

My concern for hi-res came about a few days ago, after hearing a claim about hi-res being worthwhile for performances recorded natively in hi-res. I did some more research last night and learned that hi-res is more relevant for production, because it gives the production professionals more headroom for the work they do on the music. For playback, CD quality has substantial headroom beyond what we can hear. That's welcome information, because I won't mistakenly rule out a good piece of equipment because it isn't "hi-res capable."

That's a good viewpoint.
In the recording studios they will even use 32 bit to give themselves all the possible headroom.
Then it gets all downsampled to reasonable levels.

The movie industry works the same way...the files of modern movies/shows are absolutely massive, then they get encoded down to a size where they can be distributed either for disc or streaming....this is how Kaleidescape gets slightly better versions of movies...they aren't restricted by disc space.

 

[Bobby Bass]

HI Res can sound great but so do many older CDs. A well recorded album or CD sounds good across formats IMO. I have some vintage equipment. If it plays well without distortion or interference it still sounds good to my old ears. I like the look more than anything. Reminds me of when and where I was when first listening. Just like most songs bring back a certain time and place and sometimes a person in my memory.

 

[highfigh]

Still think my beloved old Luxman R117 was the culmination of everything good in high fidelity all rolled into one badass chassis....sure, there was always more expensive stuff out there, but was any of it any better ??
not really.

Luxman R-117 | Classic Receivers

At 160 watts per channel the Luxman R-117 is a monster receiver and it has the power and features to make it arguably the best receiver Luxman ever made.

classicreceivers.com

My first CD player is a DZ-112 from that era. Still sounds great.

 

[highfigh]

IMO, vintage gear can be very good long after it was manufactured, but as soon as it becomes more complex in circuitry and function, repairing it later is going to be difficult because of unavailable parts and people who are familiar enough with it to do the work. Sure, in a country with 300+ million people, someone is likely to be able to do it but the trick is in finding them.

I own a Sony turntable that is great, but if the controls become completely inoperable, it becomes an expensive paperweight.

 

[davidscott]

You might consider seeing what you can "hear" with hi-res vs redbook cd (or even lossy codecs) via an abx test, software like Foobar2000 or Audacity has ability to do such. Personally I don't bother with hi-res particularly, most of mine comes on various blu-rays, but redbook cd comprises the majority of my digital collection.

Same here. I have 100 plus LPs and 500 or so CDs. I have a nice REGA Planar 3 setup but I hardly listen to LPs anymore.

 

[LouVC]

HI Res can sound great but so do many older CDs. A well recorded album or CD sounds good across formats IMO. I have some vintage equipment. If it plays well without distortion or interference it still sounds good to my old ears. I like the look more than anything. Reminds me of when and where I was when first listening. Just like most songs bring back a certain time and place and sometimes a person in my memory.

It comes back to how I shopped for music before falling for misinformation about hi-res playback: it's about the production quality. Was it recorded well? Was it mixed and mastered well? Maybe there are other production steps I'm unaware of. If the production was high-quality, then Redbook will give you excellent playback. As most of us know, even LP on a capable playback system can give us all the satisfaction we'd want.

 

[MrBoat]

I believe subpar recordings causes more upgraditus than any one aspect of audiophilia. Excellent recordings can sound audibly flawless on a lot of gear covering a pretty wide economic span. These days, when I see someone firmly planted in one of the more mainstream, dated genres, going for neutral speakers and gear, and no tone controls, I figure they are going to have their hands full finding satisfaction. Back in the day, sales people used to audition gear for us with contemporary jazz, which was much cleaner than say rock and was known as cheater music.

 

[crazyfingers]

My old stiff was relatively high end considering a college student's budget. ADCOM GTP-500 Preamp, Carver M400 Amp, two Nakamichi BX-300 cassette recorders And my prized possession, Allison Three speakers. 40 years later and retired I've now replaced the ADCOM and the Carver. The difference in quality is definitely noticeable. More on the NAD C 658 preamp that replaced the ADCOM than the NAD C NAD C 298 Amp that replaced the Carver (which was dying a slow death)

Whether they are higher end or just new technology I don't know. Can't go by price given a 40 year span. And crap can be expensive.

I still love my Allison Three speakers. While I really have nothing to compare them to my gut tells me that they'd hold their own against similar speakers today. Their room corner position and convex tweeters and midrange drivers provide amazing dispersion and depth.

But I really don't know how good they are other than that I love them.

However things have changed so much. I really could not go back to flipping vinyls or flipping tapes or changing CDs. With all of my music now on the computer, most in Applelossless /ALAC, and streaming over Wifi from by desk chair or my Android, It's just a very different.

Back in the day I loved flipping vinyls and tapes. Because that how it was done. I recall thinking way back then and wondering when we'd finally have no-moving-parts music. I didn't know how it would come to be but I wondered because turntables need maintenance, stylus need replacement, cassette decks are all about moving parts. Moving parts = wearing parts.

But no cave man ever sat in front of the camp fire grumbling about the lack of television. So I never grumbled that I couldn't sit on the couch with my tablet and change the music and the volume. The idea was outside of the then current world.

Now will they ever find a way to make a speaker without moving parts? I have my doubts but... who knows...

 

[MrBoat]

My old stiff was relatively high end considering a college student's budget. ADCOM GTP-500 Preamp, Carver M400 Amp, two Nakamichi BX-300 cassette recorders And my prized possession, Allison Three speakers. 40 years later and retired I've now replaced the ADCOM and the Carver. The difference in quality is definitely noticeable. More on the NAD C 658 preamp that replaced the ADCOM than the NAD C NAD C 298 Amp that replaced the Carver (which was dying a slow death)

Whether they are higher end or just new technology I don't know. Can't go by price given a 40 year span. And crap can be expensive.

I still love my Allison Three speakers. While I really have nothing to compare them to my gut tells me that they'd hold their own against similar speakers today. Their room corner position and convex tweeters and midrange drivers provide amazing dispersion and depth.

But I really don't know how good they are other than that I love them.

View attachment 64181View attachment 64182

However things have changed so much. I really could not go back to flipping vinyls or flipping tapes or changing CDs. With all of my music now on the computer, most in Applelossless /ALAC, and streaming over Wifi from by desk chair or my Android, It's just a very different.

Back in the day I loved flipping vinyls and tapes. Because that how it was done. I recall thinking way back then and wondering when we'd finally have no-moving-parts music. I didn't know how it would come to be but I wondered because turntables need maintenance, stylus need replacement, cassette decks are all about moving parts. Moving parts = wearing parts.

But no cave man ever sat in front of the camp fire grumbling about the lack of television. So I never grumbled that I couldn't sit on the couch with my tablet and change the music and the volume. The idea was outside of the then current world.

Now will they ever find a way to make a speaker without moving parts? I have my doubts but... who knows...

I love vinyl when I have nothing else. I like having it around, for at least a semi-apocalyptic event, like after (or during for that matter) a hurricane. I have some albums that just only sound right with that format, right, or wrong. Deep Purple Machine Head, for one. Rush 2112, yet another. I'm not adding much to my vinyl, but I keep the same 70 or so intact. I add some novelty selections to it, but the mainstays are just worth revisiting periodically.

While I like digital music and convenience, nothing sits me down like my old vinyl does. Even my old CDs still rock my socks. For me, the most difficult part of vinyl and CD is getting started with a session. Once I break that physical motion to it, it is easy. OTOH, I really don't need, or long to do it because my digital sources are better than I am.

I am currently having another fight with Alexa, who suddenly decided I needed podcast and weather notifications, which I never asked for, or used it for. I am not a podcast type. Then it made me go thru a bunch of redundant settings in the app to turn it all off. Between the phone and other 'smart' digital content platforms, I am instead beginning to tire of it before I even wholeheartedly accepted it in the first place. Youtube, for example, has become increasingly annoying, with it's so-called "influencers" and the garbage that passes for entertainment these days. Now they have people doing reaction videos to other people's reaction videos. . . short films that are just incomplete clickbait, not to mention the obnoxious socially retarded pranksters harassing innocent people etc.

About my only satisfactory streaming source anymore is Pandora. It seems to trust that I know what to look for on my own, without spoon feeding me a bunch of non-related suggestions, ads, or cramming every available space on the page with superfluous bs.

Amazon Prime, otoh, suggests kind of weird selections of music that are pretty far off of my path and I do not like the congested layout. If I don't find a reason to use it more in the near future, I may kick it to the curb. As it is, I'm not using it often. It's a bit too finicky with the search function, often needing exact wording/spelling in an exact order or it returns with "no results." The other telling feature with amazon is their interpretation of a loosely stated song title, or a band's name that is a bit obscure or of a bit too common language or phrase perhaps, is what it does find, or thinks that I mean, almost always returns some godawful underground rap wannabe, which will instead just ruin whatever music mood I had in the first place.

ETA: I end up using Alexa to play my stations from Pandora. Once I get it to there, I really don't need the dot for anything else other than to pass that signal.