Why Vintage Speakers?

mhardy6647

... of course,as I type this tonight, I'm listening to Steely Dan on licorice pizza on a pair of Dynaco A-35s via a sand-based harmon/kardon power amp (and a DIY Pete Millett hybrid linestage)... go figure ;-)

DSC_9644 by mhardy6647, on Flickr

DSC_9171 by mhardy6647, on Flickr

cnh

I can't say that all new designs are not equal to vintage, that would require such an enormous amount of listening time that there would be no time left to do anything else.

But most new designs do not call me as much. System synergy is important but it is RARELY achieved. People can delude themselves into thinking they've achieved it for a time, but they're ready to UPGRADE all too soon. That said there are any number of vintage speakers I have NO desire to upgrade! Digital glare! You bet. I've heard a LOT of Polkie systems, lots, and I hate to say this, but the glare is there! They're resolving but tiring and fatiguing even with all the fancy cables, high end DACs, amps, pres, room treatments, etc., etc. They just don't do the trick. Yet, the owners think they're there, or close? Subjectivity laughs at synergy much of the time. Or, as a friend of mine use do say "language is a form of hypnosis", if you phrase something to yourself in the right way and keep repeating it, you will hear it--for a while, that is.

I've said this quite often here. I have RARELY heard ONE system sound the same way on TWO different days. One day it might be fine, the next it's problematic even though NOTHING has changed (well, I guess I have, my mood has, and so has the weather--more Heraclitus than the Cretan)! Then a week later it's OK again, then not...the self chases its own shadow in vain.

Finally, music venues vary. Some may actually sound like the muddy (soft) that Dskip dismisses? Others may be a bit more lively, you can here a pin drop, people hack and cough, crack their chairs, shuffle their feet, drop a pen, whisper to their partner, squirm in their seat, etc., etc. Seems you can HEAR everything but the music itself. That's what all that resolution gives you, sometime. lol

But now I'm just rambling.

--Dynacos, an HK 430 and an old Realistic LAB TT sound just fine to me today, and may be too "soft" tomorrow, or not? Of course they roll of the highs some, and for the better; my old ears need a rest and my body is being drawn toward the earth where it will reside in a very dirt-ridden and muddy environment for a very very long time.

cnh

mhardy6647

cnh raises some excellent points about real music in real venues... the Duplexes can convey a sense of
the sound of the performance space in which a recording was made; that was their day job, for decades, in radio stations and recording studios around the world. Heck, the Beatles listened to themselves in the studio on Duplexes (albeit 605As, not 604s)!

Real music isn't (usually) polite-sounding, I must admit -- depending on the venue, it can be pretty pungent, even (truth be told), yes, ear-gouging.

cnh

DSkip wrote: »

It takes a delicate balance and getting it right is hard task. I want the details. I want the pinpoint accuracy. I want to not hear music coming from a box, but coming from a distinct spot in space. I want a sound that doesn't sound like fingernails on chalkboards.

Getting all of that in one package is a daunting task. This is part of the journey IMO. Some people get there, but many do not. It takes a lot of trial and error to get there, and along the way you generally have to make some sacrifices in other areas. I've always fought off everything else to keep my system at a place that I can sit and listen for hours. One you're able to add in everything else and keep that 'warmth', its absolutely incredible. It's then that your system starts to do things that vintage rigs aren't capable of - please the ears while providing levels of detail and precision that make you drop your jaw.

I don't doubt you. But I would refer you to some of your own threads where you "doubt" yourself and your current system. And that is all I am saying above. I am a GREAT believer in doubt. Or as Augustine once said, and I paraphrase (not I think therefore I am) but I doubt therefore there is a doubter doubting. That's human, it's subjectivity, it's what we are and it's a Bxtch!

cnh

F1nut

Why Vintage Speakers?

Simple, you silly troll. Because.

OldmanSRS

Because they weren't vintage when I bought them in 1988. They are paid for. They sound great. They look impressive. They weigh a lot. They have outlasted 95% of everything I've owned since 1988. They've lived in other countries. They are like family.

nooshinjohn

When you have the most glorious pair of monoblocks ever constructed on planet earth, even the worst pair of these can sound good...

bigaltx24

To me it comes down to shear quantity. I can buy vintage speakers real cheap, fix them up, play with them for a while, then find them good homes. I average buying a couple of pairs a month, so in a year I get to listen to twenty four different pairs of speakers. To do that with new speakers would be prohibitively expensive. With vintage speakers I usually find two or three pairs a year that I really like. I doubt that number would change much if I was doing the same thing with new speakers.

mhardy6647

F1nut wrote: »

Simple, you silly troll. Because.

Silly? check.
Troll? seems like it.

but... the thread's engendered some interesting (if predictable, at least in terms of my comments) discussion, nicht wahr?