|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.188.229.200
I read quite often here and elsewhere where audiophiles prefer the sound of a company's older legacy product(s) versus their newer or latest version.
Examples that come to mind are Klipsch Heritage (K-Horn, Cornwall, LaScala, Belle, etc.) Versus their latest. The Thorens TD 124 versus their current offerings. The early to mid 60's Fisher, McIntosh, Sherwood, Marantz, Altec, JBL among others come to the forefront as examples of products that are generally held in higher regard compared to what followed. This can't be just collectors driving the market, and must have something to do with sound quality.
Some of the product changes could be due to cost cutting, or newer technology that is/was perceived to perform better than old - dunno?
Examples would be:
1) Alnico vs Ferrite
2) Tubes vs Sand
3) Idler vs Belt
4) Baltic Birch vs Particle Board/MDF
5) Transistors vs Op Amps
And on and on......
I would lover to hear about experiences other inmates may have had where a legacy product of a company bested a more contemporary product that followed.
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
Follow Ups:
I was thinking about this again today. Someone posted a quantifying statement. " High end today is better than high end of yesteryear" .. That statement makes sense to me.("High end" being the operative). I guess one way to look at it is "pedigree". I would rather have that vintage Ferrari than an evolved Volkswagen. As I mentioned earlier its about passion. Great things have evolved into .. well.. great things. And junk evolves into.. well... junk. It is a mish mash.. as companies change and get bought and sold. New Infinity is a different company than old. It was about the man.. the visionary, the one who put it all on the line because he/she believes in something.. Everyone here can name the human element that was responsible for the gear they run. And with the humanity ... was the passion. Integrity is timeless. When we appreciate anything, we are hearing it on whatever level we want to, and debate it endlessly. We can measure and clock and scrutinize, but specs mean nothing when one describes a sound that has "warmth". Its the amalgam of our systems that vibrate our ears, not any one part...And it is unique to each.
Well stated; now you you have me thinking - that could be dangerous.
The men (we are talking audio after all) that started many of these great companies (often with their names on the product), had passion and vision that came through in the products they brought to the public. Sometimes, as you pointed out, things can "devolve" into something (mish mash) that is nowhere near what the founder had in mind when he started the company in the garage or kitchen. Boards of directors, leveraged buyouts, internal power struggles, publicly traded stock etc, can muddy up what the man that has his name on the box originally wanted.
Men like Ed Miller and John Snow (Sherwood), Frank McIntosh and Sidney Corderman (McIntosh), Saul Marantz (Marantz), Avery Fisher (Fisher), Paul Klipsch (Klipsch), David Hafler (Hafler & Dynaco), Stu Hageman (Harmon Kardon & Lafayette), and many many more, all had passion. They would in many instances be shocked at what has become of their vision and passion. Some would be shocked and awed, some would be shocked and saddened.
All in all, audio is better than ever performance wise. As a viable industry, it probably longs for the glory days of yesteryear.
Good post POLYPHONIC!
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
You have left out of your list of manufacturers two of the most important Gilbert Briggs Wharfedale & Peter Walker Quad , jointly gave demonstrations of Live v recorded sound at Royal Festival Hall & Carnegie Hall I was very fortunate to have known both of these audio greats and many others.
Edits: 09/06/14 09/06/14
Disbeliever;
I'm sure I left out many high end audio pioneers. I just thought in the interest of brevity I would say many, many more. :)
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
Maybe but the two I mention are probably in front , especially for speakers , I also knew Dave Hafler quite well but IMO GB & PW are among the very top pioneers they also were most influential in publicising Hi-Fi World Wide.
Edits: 09/07/14 09/07/14 09/07/14 09/07/14
Its about caring. People can, as easily, mismatch a system in the 70s as they can today. You can throw money at anything and you may solve one problem while fundamentally having another. the commonality here is that we all care. We indulge, invest, and coddle our hobby so as to aurally feast on what we like or think we like. It basses itself on hope, nostalgia, fiscal limitation and so on. There has always been junk. Then and now. We buy products. And those products are made for reasons. Manufacturers want to make money. We are massaged, titillated and deceived very easily. Our naivety is as astounding then as it is today. There are wondrous new designs today, but if plopped together without the notion of synergy and caring, its useless. It becomes throwaway, or just wanting something else. Just like everything else. Its important to experience the craft of true masters. its timeless. Just like that old Ferrari, its appreciated for what it was and for what it is. Its not about specs, its about the chorus that sings to us. I run some really big old "Nudel" inspired speakers. I make sure the power is clean and strong,I fix anything that breaks and I can hear the difference between 320 mp3s and cds. I get depth, resolution and sound-stage. It transforms me. Its a powerful experience FOR ME. I have my taste in music of which I love, almost more than anything. There is no "best" in any of this. there is only care. You can be a beginner, or a seasoned audiopheeliac, the magic of making your hobby better is the reward, and it relys on only one thing... your drive and a passion.
I am not entirely sure what constitutes "legacy" - as opposed to "earlier models" - and I think the phrase "out perform" is highly debatable. Technically, this may be the case, but subjectively old gear can sound better - at least to some of us - than newer stuff.In my case, it's reflected in a preference for "older" Magnepan speakers (before the .7 models), a Thorens TD 124 turntable as opposed to many newer tts, vintage MacIntosh tube amps to the sound of some newer tube monos.
However, I am quite willing to accept this is a question of personal preference (isn't all audio?) and that these items might be technically inferior to newer models on a range of measureable criteria. Nevertheless, for me, the sweeping generalization that newer is always better simply isn't always true.
Edits: 09/03/14
There is no other way to tailor to the sound of each source, i.e. vinyl or cd. Now, I suppose the listener can say, "I'm hearing exactly what the differences are!"
That, to my ears, is a Pyrrhic Victory, at best. I'd much rather hear a better sounding recording than chuckle to myself that I'm hearing something more "authentic," even though it sounds poorer.
It is a fallacy. Some guys say the old Ferrari's are better than the new one's. The reality is the new Ferrari's blow away the older one's. In fact all new cars blow away the old cars. Same thing in audio. Some people like to live in the past. For evidence of this go to audio kharma. They think speakers from the 70's are better than speakers produced now.
I can practically guarantee that a 2016 model Ferrari will be nothing more than a static display in a museum 50 years from now, while a 1950's unit will be both display-worthy and a driver. There is absolutely no way the electronics in the modern variant will still be operable in 50 years. If nothing else, UV emissions will destroy the memory chips, which won't be available.
Edits: 09/16/16
I greatly prefer the sound of the best vintage audio gear to nearly anything made today!
By that argument, a good new violin should be better than a Stradivarius......
d
Stacy, I currently own Altec 19s, 1977 alnico Cornwalls, early 60s JBL Apollos, Thorens Td124 MKll, and a slew of tube gear. I have in the past owned much of your list.
IMHO, little, or none of it is superior to current offerings; cut through the romanticism and nostalgia and the emperor is surely feeling a draft. To be reliable most of it needs to be chocked full of new parts and, often circuit revisions. Very few in the US actually do restorations with like vintage parts replacing bad ones.
It's fun, for sure, but lots of folks look at this old stuff through rose tinted glasses.
Marty;
I agree with your assessment for the most part in that today's high end is better than the high end from the 50's & 60's, and crushes high end from the 70's.
Where it gets a little gray is when one is able to hear some hot rodded Western Electric gear driving some vintage field coils (heard that recently), or something similarly unobtanium.
I also heard a pair of Apogee Duetta Sigs driven by Krell - WOW!!!
I cannot recall ever hearing anything better. I have heard Krell in the past and have always come away scratching my head as to why anyone would waste their money, however, the Krell/Apogee combo was great. I don't know if was the music, the room, the wine, or what, but it was amazing! The speakers were according to the owner purchased in 1988 or 1989 - semi vintage???
Am I hearing the siren call of stats? I must stay strong and tell myself that it will only end badly.
Take care.
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
that has not been significantly improved upon by its modern counterparts.
And this applies to legacy products that I loved at the time - original
Advent speakers, the KLH fm tuner, the McIntosh MA5100 integrated amp,
to name a few I'm familiar with. Yes, some of the older gear still looks
better than newer gear - the Empire turntable comes immediately to mind,
as do some of the original Marantz pieces, but looks are not pleasing to
the ear, only the eye. Which is not to say that some of this legacy
gear was not SOTA for its time, because it certainly was. But it can't
keep up today.
I'd like to hear any combination of vintage gear which can compare
sonically to a system consisting of modern large Magnepans, VTL amps,
and a high quality TT and cartridge setup. I just don't think it's
possbile. Time and technology march relentlessly on.
I met and talked to Richard Sequerra on the introduction of his new tuner (Day Sequerra). When told I owned a 10B he told me NOT to buy the new tuner, as it was better in performance only above 15kHz and few FM stations had usable FR that high. This improvement was only due to digital filtering, as I recall.The 10B in factory alignment, was as close to theoretically possible as you could get, he told me. Not bad for a component designed in the mid 60's (of course, it did drive Saul Marantz bankrupt).
Not components per se, but consider the demand for vintage output transformers. Many command very high prices and although there are reissues of the vintage designs, many still prefer the originals ( maybe because they are already broken in ). These include the vintage Marantz iron as well as the ALtec/Peerless iron (particularly the 20-20 series).
Modern manufacturer MFA used to cannibalize old Altec outputs as well as Citation outputs and Ampex outputs for their modern offerings until the supply ran dry. The original Carver Silver 7 250 watt tube power amp used Dyna A-440 output transformers but too few of them remained for them to use for their eventual production run. The general consensus was the newer remanufactured ones were not quite as good as the original Dyna units and Dyna was considered a second tier transformer manufacturer.
And then consider that there have been no really new tube design configurations for the past 25 years or so (maybe a lot longer, judging from what I see). Ultralinear amp designs have been around since, what, 1955 or thereabouts (IIRC, original patents were taken out in 1954)? Cathode follower designs were used on the Marantz 1 (1954) and probably earlier and still being used today.
One needs only to take a quick glance at Ebay to realize that vintage tubes command very high demand and prices. While newer production strives to emulate older designs (note the reissue Gold Lion, Tungsol, etc), the originals still command respect, high demand, and high prices. Try buying an NOS 300B, wholesaling for $18.50 in 1986.... Even in a modern amp, the original sounds much better to my ears (in various Cary amps, and a Wyetech as well as a Wright amp, all "modern" designs with modern parts).
of course YMMVStill, if you take the best of the 60's and compare to the best of each of the following decades, the increase in performance is relatively small. Convenience factor increases a lot, though. A 60's state of the art system would be easy to live with even today ( probably a lot more reliable too)
Older technology had limitations, primarily materials availability ( no teflons, limited plastics, no really high tolerance resistors, etc.), but where they could apply their technology they certainly did and did so superbly. Transformers and tubes were superb even by todays standards.I have restored and souped up some highly neglected Dyna units: PAS3s and ST-70s, and equipped with modern parts they can sound amazingly good, well maybe not as good as a five digit costing component, but more than holding its own against the typical middle audiophile market.
You have to be willing to make that investment however. It takes time, or money...
Edits: 09/03/14 09/03/14
I'll see your large Maggies, new VTLs, and new vinyl rig with the following:
Apogee Diva loudspeakers, Krell KRS series amps, CAT SL1 preamp, Sota Star Sapphire with ET2 arm, and a top notch cartridge from that era.
Pretty sure it would come down to a matter of preference, and I don't think the "modern" system would come anywhere close to trouncing my described (25+ year old) system.
I'll see your Divas and Krells with my Divas driven by two Audio Research D-250 Mk II Servo stereo amps in a bi-amp arrangement. Divas deserve big tube amps ;)
But I do agree with your sentiment about how we really haven't progressed all that much in audio, if at all. For example, there is nothing out there today to make me want to replace the Divas, and I've listened to most of the mega-buck contenders, usually cones-in-a-box.
___
Brian
Hello,
I see in an old thread, that you have a good copy of the cal procedure for the Triplett 3444a. Would it be possible to get a copy?
Thanks,
Steve
Well, I've not heard any of the components you list, but I know all are
well thought of. I've never been a fan of Krell product, but I suspect
it would be difficult to find a better ss amp from that era.
That line of thought has lead many people to needlessly dump vast bucketloads of cash...
An amp isn't just a simple box that sits between a source (and, likely a preamp/linestage) and a loudspeaker. If you want great sound, you can't say THIS amp is better than THAT amp, unless you qualify/quantify that statement by including the rest of the system.
To clarify that statement?
The Krell KRS amps were INCREDIBLE on the Divas. They were pretty great on the B&W 801 Matrix. They weren't so great on the Infinity IRS Beta.
A Threshold amp? was OK on the Divas, did better on the B&Ws and Infinitys.
A Sumo amp? Was quite nice on the 801s, not horrible on the Infinitys, but pretty sad on the Divas - even a pair of "lowly" Adcoms was better on the Divas.
So - which amp is better?
p.s.: As a footnote? Often heard Counterpoint amps driving the Infinity Betas and some Apogee Duettas. On the Infinity? Could be breathtaking. On the Apogees? Could be sleep inducing.
Not about comparing disparate brands and products, but rather as the post says:
"I read quite often here and elsewhere where audiophiles prefer the sound of a company's older legacy product(s) versus their newer or latest version. "
I cannot think of a single example where the "legacy" product from a single brand is better than the current product. So is the KRS "better" than the current "Solo" models? Is any Threshold (I have a Stasis 3 myself) better than a Pass Labs XS amp?
Technically we can do better, but it's angels dancing on the head of a pin; I think we maxed out in terms of audible performance quite a while ago, as that system would certainly show. Alas, all of it far beyond my pay grade.
They just don't make 'em like they used to.
My guess is that a lot of older turntables (and tonearms) could give more modern tables a run for their money.
I think digital audio playback, from purely a sonic standpoint, peaked in the 1990s, and has regressed ever since.
I personally use the Philips CDC-935 CD changer, modified with tube output stage. This player's DAC section is IMO as good as anything short of a Prism DA-2 or Wadia 9 DAC (both 1990s vintage products). And the JVC XL-Z1050 CD player is once of the best ever at connecting the listener to the music. The one CD player I'd personally call a "classic".
My TD 124 is sublime.
Serving up content-free posts on the Internet since 1984.
As is my Lenco L75.....
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
I agree. Lenco owners can be justly proud of their turntables.
Serving up content-free posts on the Internet since 1984.
Today we have better theory, better test equipment and better means of production than anything they had in the 1970s. When it comes to electronics, the best of the best today can't be touched by vintage anything. Even average can be pretty darn good. OTOH, the bottom is as bad as it ever was.
The same is true for mechanics, so far as analysis and design capabilities, but the economics are a disaster. It costs so much to make precision mechanical parts that the high volume makers in the '70s could easily compete with most of what you can get today. We're capable of better, but you have to pay a lot more to get it. I wonder what a classic Thorens or Empire would cost to build today?
I agree with you. I too wonder what it would cost to make a TD 124 today, or any of the top of the line turntables of yesterday.
When it comes to amp design, (tubes in particular) I think there is nothing truly new under the sun. From what I understand, the designs are basically recycling designs from the "golden" age of audio.
I do believe however, that many of the components have been improved, such as teflon caps and metal and carbon film resistors. No more paper and wax caps being made, and that is a huge improvement.
I do wonder, however, if today's electrolytics will match the lifespan of yesterdays. For example, I have several early 60's amps, and the electrolytics are still working fine, although I believe that I will need to start replacing the electrolytics in my '61 Hammond organ soon.
Serving up content-free posts on the Internet since 1984.
.
"The problem with quotes from the internet is that many of them are just made up."
-Abraham Lincoln
You could do with some heavy drapes .
My new ARC preamp is much better than the old one. The current version of my VTL amps is better, too.
Old stuff can be good, but in my experience new stuff is better. In general, I've found that the cost of good sound has continued to drop over the years.
I have never experienced anything better than GRF Tannoys driven by Marantz 8's. I am sure that there is a better system out there, but I can't afford it.
Until recently my speakers were Cornwall 2's (the pick of the litter) driven by either a magnavox flea-powered tube amp or Sony STR V4 receiver, the last to use discrete components rather than ICs and op-amps.Am breaking in a pair of 4Pi speakers ow. Regret selling my Fisher 500. I am still listening to 15 inch Tannoys in Montreal, driven by, of all things, a TACT amp. My boutique dealer has unfriended me on facebook.
always appealed to me, the logic seemed irrefutable.
In making comparison is aging parts. resisters go out of tolerance and caps become leaky, leading many to condemn vintage gear. compound that with many alterations lowering resale value n you have a major problem.
Many pieces of vintage gear can sound shockingly good even by.todays standards. Case in point Quad 57's. Even Marantz tubes (and non Marantz) can sound very good, maybe not as good as todays 5 digit components, but considering film caps were limited and teflon non existent, they more than hold their own.
Edits: 09/02/14
I always find Quad 57,s unlistenable due to their extreme beaming effect, I know others do not hear this problem. much Legacy gear is coloured & simply fondly nostalgic for many , todays High End is generally better but the prices are in many cases a total rip-off for folks with more dough than commonsense.
Edits: 09/03/14
Quad 57s UNLISTENABLE?? ??? ?????
OK. Whatever floats your boat-load.
Maybe you can't sit still?
Quad 57 Yes unlistenable for me, not others the extreme beamimg effect I can not tolerate.unfortunately I suffer from intermittant benign postural vertigo which is probably the reason.
Edits: 09/07/14 09/07/14 09/07/14
Yes very true, but for midrange purity,extremely few modern transducers can match the. Quad. Mark Levinson built custom stands in the 80s for the speaker to make it easier to adjust. He then came out with the HQD system: double stacked Quads with a Decca ribbon (also vintage) and a Hartley TL woofer (likewise vintage). It was a superb system which would its own even today.Of course YMMV
Oh Yeah, relatively unknown in the US but a Hong Kong Company, the Radio People, IIRC, used to build a double stacked Quad system and rearranged the panels for better dispersion. Never really heard them although I met a guy who had them (never invited me over to listen).
Actually considering the speaker was introduced in 1957, definitely in the mono era, it is quite a remarkable achievement. Also consider that electrostatics were invented before magnetic dynamic drivers (original was made of gold foil hammered on to very thin chamois, Alexander Graham Bell built it, IIRC). Consider that even mylar plastic shrink wrap was not commercially available till the early 60's (61?, I'm sure someone will correct me). The effort that Walker made in creating this speaker is rather remarkable given the material constraints of the time.
Edits: 09/03/14 09/03/14 09/03/14 09/03/14
I saw & heard stacked 57,s , the system never took off unacceptable appearance and too high price for most. I did use the ESL -63,s for some years with added tweeters could never get a sub to integrate properly and now much prefer slim TLS speakers, sub not required.
Edits: 09/03/14 09/03/14
You state the system "never took off"; Unacceptable appearance, and too high of price for most. How did the stacked quads sound?
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
It was a long long time ago ,I can not really remember,sounds are seldom excellent in Hotel bedrooms, anyway I could not live with 57,s . I would not go back to any electrostatic or panel speaker. Its rather strange I obviously was not overwhelmed by the stacked Quads However I still remember from mono days , sound from the speaker that got me into Hi-Fi , the Voigt Corner Horn albeit coloured by today,s standards.
Edits: 09/04/14 09/05/14
In my audio world I have some of each. My Fi 2A3 monos are new, but the design is from the American Renaissance of SET era. My Audio Note K speakers hark back to the 70s; the same with my Stirling LS3/5Aa, although I have some higher efficiency speakers that are a more modern design from Tonian Labs, and so on.
Observe, before you think. Think before you open your yap. Act on the basis of experience.
You're reaching a series of conclusions based on your own anecdotal experience. So, I can't comment on the veracity of your statements.
However, I truly hope that the newer Klipsch speakers are better than the older big ones. They sounded like crap.
Vintage Altec and JBL? Surely you jest. Altec, without significant EQ, was like putting a dentist drill in your ear. JBL was all over the map, but mostly "boom-sizzle". "Acoustic lens" - Ha! What a joke - no surprise that even they abandoned it.
Many of these companies are still the same in name only, having gone through corporate/branding ownership changes, sometimes more than once, so to compare a current "Marantz" product to a Saul Marantz product is like comparing products from two different companies - because they are.
:)
Inmate 51;
I'm not reaching any conclusions. I was just stating that I have read here and elsewhere where some audiophiles seem to prefer a company's legacy product(s) more than their current offerings.
I have had a mix of vintage and modern gear now and in the past. All of it works well together so I don't know of any anecdotal experience that I may have that supports exclusively vintage, or modern gear.
I have had the latest equipment from Paradigm Reference, Pass Labs, PS Audio, Magnepan, Sony ES, Schiit, and more. I have also had great vintage gear from Fisher, Sherwood, Harmon Kardon, Dynaco, Lenco, and Audio Research.
I just wished (others may also) to hear from inmates about their experiences where legacy gear was preferred over the modern or updated version - THAT'S ALL.
An example of what I was getting at is something like the Marantz 9, 8b, or 7 commanding a great deal of money when offered. The market can't be driven exclusively by collectors. Surely there must be those audiophiles that prefer their respective sound/performance.
You obviously have your opinions about Klipsch Heritage, Altec, and JBL that you so eloquently expressed - great.
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
Some audiophiles prefer (...) (fill in the blank with any and all outlandish stuff and that is the state of hifi today.
nt
all the best,
mrh
Inmate51,I don't disagree with your conclusions, but consider this:
A whole lot of the vintage recordings you [probably] enjoy were mastered using vintage equipment, including Altec and JBL. Example? How about most of the Beatles Recordings using Altec speakers. Oh, and tubes, (assuming you dislike them also.)
My conclusion is, take your mother's advice, if you can't have something positive to say, don't say anything. Someone just might have something bad to say about your choice of audio equipment also :P
PS See Tinear's post about "vitriol" below, sums it up I think.
Serving up content-free posts on the Internet since 1984.
Edits: 09/02/14 09/02/14 09/02/14 09/02/14 09/02/14 09/02/14
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: