Can the old vintage amps sound better than todays heavy hitters

inspiredsports

PolkClyde wrote: »

Can we turn it around,if you guys haven't already.Whata you say?

Point was already made in post 21

erniejade

I have a old McIntosh 2105, Adcom 555, sunfire sig II 625 x2. Now For me, it is all about 1. personal preference on the sound and 2. matching the right speaker up with the right amp.

I have a set of JM Labs 815, small speaker but sounds way bigger then it should. The Adcom sounds harsh on the 815. The McIntosh, actually mellows the speaker out nicely and sounds great!!!! The Sunfire is kind of between the 2 amps on the JM Labs.

The same adcom, same pre and all components, paired with Vandersteen 2CE sounds wonderful and on the McIntosh sounds muddy. The sunfire cam out on top with the vandies though.

Dawgfish

Yes, but like others have said it depends purely on the piece of gear.

BlueFox

PolkClyde wrote: »

Can we turn it around,if you guys haven't already.Whata you say?

Of course old speakers from the 70s can't sound better than today's "heavy hitters". There has been tremendous research and improvements in speaker drivers, cabinet design, and crossovers since the 1970s. There is no comparison.

Why do you keep trying to live in the past?

nooshinjohn

BlueFox wrote: »

Of course old speakers from the 70s can't sound better than today's "heavy hitters". There has been tremendous research and improvements in speaker drivers, cabinet design, and crossovers since the 1970s. There is no comparison.

Why do you keep trying to live in the past?

Gotta call some amout of bs here. There were some brilliant speakers made back in the day that hold their own and thensome with todays offerings. The top end JBL's and Altec's come to mind, as do the SDA's of the 1980's and up. The bottom line is a great piece of gear is just that. It is up to each of us to define what that is.

TroyD

I have a pair of Heathkit W-5M's (rebuilt) circa late 1950's.....classic Williamson push-pull design. Arguably the most sought after iron ever.

I'd put them up against just about anything out there.

BDT

Fongolio

I'd put my newly rebuilt 50 year old Eico ST-70 up against many newer amps. And as for oldie but goodie speakers, yes I have SDA's but I also have a pair of 40 year old Dynaco 25's that beat the pants off many newer speakers. Can they compete with the top end stand mounts? No, but they'll hold their own against many mid and nearly all low end.

markmarc

Conrad-Johnson will refurb their vintage gear, during the process some components are replaced with for example Teflon capacitors that actually improve upon the measurement/sound quality.

PolkClyde

BlueFox wrote: »

Of course old speakers from the 70s can't sound better than today's "heavy hitters". There has been tremendous research and improvements in speaker drivers, cabinet design, and crossovers since the 1970s. There is no comparison.

Why do you keep trying to live in the past?

I have not heard anything better than my 1.2's or Infinity Kappa 9's. I know there are probably, better speakers out there.but,in this case, living in the past, is heavenly to my ears. Polk 1.2's rules.

PolkClyde

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Gotta call some amout of bs here. There were some brilliant speakers made back in the day that hold their own and thensome with todays offerings. The top end JBL's and Altec's come to mind, as do the SDA's of the 1980's and up. The bottom line is a great piece of gear is just that. It is up to each of us to define what that is.

I agree 100%

erniejade

Infinity Kappa 9's. I love the emit tweeters!

steveinaz

Audio isn't like computers, newer doesn't necessarily mean better; why do you think many vintage items are so highly sought after? If AR ever built the AR9Lsi again (the same way), I'd be on it.

sucks2beme

steveinaz wrote: »

Audio isn't like computers, newer doesn't necessarily mean better; why do you think many vintage items are so highly sought after? If AR ever built the AR9Lsi again (the same way), I'd be on it.

Once again, a good speaker or amp is still a good speaker or amp.
A good older unit in good repair(caps and alignment) can perform as well
as many newer units. But old "crap" doesn't get better with age, regardless
of what they sell for on ebay. It's all about bang for the buck.
If I buy it, and it needs $300 of tech work(not all that uncommon),
why screw around with old stuff? A couple year old piece of gear may still be
a better deal in the long haul. I've had a lot of pretty good older speakers
in here. My current set is less than a decade old, and so far is the winner.
The ARC amp also doesn't need those expensive NOS tubes to sound good.
It works fine with modern tubes. And it was less expensive than some of those
rebuilt "classics". Don't get hung up on old vs. new. It's all about what sounds good.

PolkClyde

sucks2beme wrote: »

Once again, a good speaker or amp is still a good speaker or amp.Don't get hung up on old vs. new. It's all about what sounds good.

I couldn't have said it any better,your highness.

steveinaz

Isn't that pretty much a "duh" moment. Of course it goes without saying that good is, well good. The question was, can vintage equipment compete with modern equipment, and IMO it most certainly can---and does.

BlueFox

steveinaz wrote: »

Isn't that pretty much a "duh" moment. Of course it goes without saying that good is, well good. The question was, can vintage equipment compete with modern equipment, and IMO it most certainly can---and does.

That is not the way I read the question. He referred to the equipment from the 70s sounding better than today's "heavy hitters".

"Can the old vintage amps sound better than todays heavy hitters "

Granted, "heavy hitter" is a vague, ambiguous term that can mean anything, but I interpreted it as today's top of the line gear versus the top of the line from the 70s. And in that scenario, the answer is no. Neither 30 year old amps or 30 year old speakers can compete with today's top of the line gear.

As I said earlier, the real question is at what price point does today's gear equal or exceed the top of the line gear from the 70s.

If anybody wants to argue that audio technology peaked in the 70s, and has remained stagnant since that period then fine, but don't expect it to be true :rolleyes:.

steveinaz

Same message, I just paraphrased.

inspiredsports

BlueFox wrote: »

That is not the way I read the question. He referred to the equipment from the 70s sounding better than today's "heavy hitters".

"Can the old vintage amps sound better than todays heavy hitters "

Granted, "heavy hitter" is a vague, ambiguous term that can mean anything, but I interpreted it as today's top of the line gear versus the top of the line from the 70s. And in that scenario, the answer is no. Neither 30 year old amps or 30 year old speakers can compete with today's top of the line gear.

As I said earlier, the real question is at what price point does today's gear equal or exceed the top of the line gear from the 70s.

If anybody wants to argue that audio technology peaked in the 70s, and has remained stagnant since that period then fine, but don't expect it to be true :rolleyes:.

To each his/her own.

As far as amps go, many will continue to pursue classic tube gear produced by Manley, VTL, Conrad Johnson, VAC, McIntosh, Heathkit, Marantz and Fisher, etc.

Many will buy new tube or transistor based gear.

When well executed, the setups will probably all sound pretty damn good.

Rev. Hayes

inspiredsports wrote: »

Also, and with very few exceptions, NOS 50's vacuum tubes destroy newly produced tubes.

This particular "truth" has always confused me. The vacuum tube is a relatively simple device. Why would modern manufacturers not be able to create a tube of equal quality at low cost these days? (please don't give the supply demand speech, that's not what I mean) Or perhaps the vacuum mellows and blends better after sitting for 60 years...

cnh

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Gotta call some amout of bs here. There were some brilliant speakers made back in the day that hold their own and thensome with todays offerings. The top end JBL's and Altec's come to mind, as do the SDA's of the 1980's and up. The bottom line is a great piece of gear is just that. It is up to each of us to define what that is.

Have to go with John here, especially since I own both classic JBLs from that era and a set of SDAs. But of course, technology has also moved forward.

Yet, on that note, there are still a LOT OF GUYS who feel that VINYL trumps any and all digital formats--so what do we do with that?

I listen to vinyl but I'm on the fence on that one--not sure because I don't own a 600 dollar vinyl cleaning machine or a multi-thousand (10K or more) dollar TT with a 50-100+ lb platter, etc.

cnh

sucks2beme

Rev. Hayes wrote: »

This particular "truth" has always confused me. The vacuum tube is a relatively simple device. Why would modern manufacturers not be able to create a tube of equal quality at low cost these days? (please don't give the supply demand speech, that's not what I mean) Or perhaps the vacuum mellows and blends better after sitting for 60 years...

It's a lost science. The techniques used to make the tubes were
lost with the shutdown of the places that made them. Tubes of the
same type had different sounds by who made them. As we move forward,
most likely somebody will stumble into the trick of making a "classic"
sounding tube. Don't mistake simple for easy.

inspiredsports

I guess Shuguang Psvane (Pavane) & Treasure Tubes are close . . . http://psvanetube.com

I plan on auditioning some soon, but the interesting thing is their prices are commensurate with the pricing of the best NOS tubes. I also hate the concept of sending even more dollars over there.

That brings up an interesting question: I wonder what some of the most highly sought after tubes actually sold for on the day they were produced (and also what that original '50's/'60's price would be equal to in in today's dollars).

Rev. Hayes

sucks2beme wrote: »

It's a lost science. The techniques used to make the tubes were
lost with the shutdown of the places that made them. Tubes of the
same type had different sounds by who made them. As we move forward,
most likely somebody will stumble into the trick of making a "classic"
sounding tube. Don't mistake simple for easy.

I follow your reasoning but it still surprises me that in the modern industrial era (of the 50's) such techniques and processes would not have been carefully documented and eventually sold to another manufacturer.

I was kind of joking earlier, but is it possible that there actually could be some benefit to the "aging" of tubes?

sucks2beme

Rev. Hayes wrote: »

I follow your reasoning but it still surprises me that in the modern industrial era (of the 50's) such techniques and processes would not have been carefully documented and eventually sold to another manufacturer.

I was kind of joking earlier, but is it possible that there actually could be some benefit to the "aging" of tubes?

There most likely were a lot of tweaks employed out on the assembly line.
Also, who were they going to sell the processes to?
Tubes were replaced, and were considered a dead technology.
If the old communist countries hadn't opened up to sell tubes
to the west, the whole new wave of tube gear would never of happened.
I worked industrial automation in my youth. There's a pretty steep
ramp up on new production. Nothing ever quite works as designed.
A lot of head scratching happens along the way.
Look at the Chinese attempt to make their own capacitors.
They even hired some engineers from another company. The
result was a lot of PC motherboards and HT gear failures in the
early 2000's due to the cap gel formula not being quite right.

PolkClyde

steveinaz wrote: »

Isn't that pretty much a "duh" moment. Of course it goes without saying that good is, well good. The question was, can vintage equipment compete with modern equipment, and IMO it most certainly can---and does.

I'm still loving my Carver Silver 7 t's Mono Amps,it's truly is vintage and can compete with the best of them,no static no hum.

Tony M

Face wrote: »

Vintage Mac, not at all. The newer stuff sounds much better IMO, but still isn't for me.

Thank you for the heads up on Macs. I won't be buying one unless the price is real cheap, like my friend got. He got lucky.

I'm set for now with my Sunfire and SDA-SRS2's. It just sounds right to me.

Also my wallet is thin these days.:frown:

nooshinjohn

cnh wrote: »

Yet, on that note, there are still a LOT OF GUYS who feel that VINYL trumps any and all digital formats--so what do we do with that?

I listen to vinyl but I'm on the fence on that one--not sure because I don't own a 600 dollar vinyl cleaning machine or a multi-thousand (10K or more) dollar TT with a 50-100+ lb platter, etc.

cnh

My SACD player is giving vinyl a run for it's money in terms of quality sound, but vinyl is cheaper in terms of how I buy it than plunking down 35 bucks a disc for the SACD versions. Add to this that most of my vinyl is unobtanium on SACD. I cannot see a day when transfering my vinyl to a digital medium would be at all preferable to watching it spin on my table instead.

nooshinjohn

PolkClyde wrote: »

I'm still loving my Carver Silver 7 t's Mono Amps,it's truly is vintage and can compete with the best of them,no static no hum.

Great amps... My new (to me) pair are running my Maggies right now and the results are truly special.

PolkClyde

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Great amps... My new (to me) pair are running my Maggies right now and the results are truly special.

The Silver 7t's or the 9's, they are really the same. I think the 9's VU meter lights up and have a 1db increase in the Lows(bass).

Joe08867

I still prefer the sound of a Silver faced SX series Pioneer Receiver to a new Pioneer Elite unit. So I think the old stuff can compete with the new.