Think your old stuff was better?

[steveinaz]

Well, I finally have a basis for answer.

No.

Lemme splain. Many times along this audio journey of 30+ years I wondered if my first setup was better. It sure seemed like it--I mean, I seemed to enjoy it more back then. Maybe it's a psyco-acoustical/emotional thing--a question of relativity, who knows exactly. You spend the first 8 years of your life listening to Donnie & Marie on a close-n-play, you're bound to get goosebumps from anything new...right?

So...I finally REGAIN my system of the 70's. The same stuff I had minus the CT-F500 cassette deck--a DVD player used in it's place. Long story short--no, it doesn't even come close to resembling my current main rig. Ok, so right away that's a bitter sweet relief...but there's more.

I think what made the equipment of the day so alluring ("the day" being the 70's in respect to this topic) is the difference in speaker design. You don't see 8" and 10" woofers in bookshelf speakers anymore--and I think there is more to that than meets the eye. I think the inclusion of larger woofers made for a more impactful (dare I say diserable) sound. Though I can hear the lower and mid-bass disortion that is absent in most multi-woofer modern day speakers; but it's a foundational albeit distorted bass that gives the old school sound we haven't heard in years. A certain fullness, body, realism that seems thin and anemic in today's speakers. It almost sounds like an argument for tubes vs SS.

But anywho, these were my observations---and yes, I still thoroughly enjoy hearing the music over those HPM's--for better or worse. I have also gained a whole new respect for what my main system does so right.

Rock on.

[madmax]

I also re-purchased my system of the 70's. It sucked too. It wasn't even good enough for the garage system...
madmax

[ben62670]

Even though my old stuff sucked by comparison I was happier:( I thought it rocked!

[mmadden28]

I'll never go back to that damn single speaker boom box with a broken cassette door. NEVER! :mad::D

[mmadden28]

Actually, the first time I remember being taken back by music (of my teenage years), had to be the first time I heard a CD, back when they first came out. I think I had a Magnavox boombox or something. I thought it was amazing-the clarity, the crispness versus cassette. Honestly I don't think it would sound quite the same today to me, but I'll never forget the moments. :rolleyes:

[George Grand]

I am in total agreement with Steve. I was a pretty state of the art guy with the AR-XA/Shure V15 Type III table and a pair of KLH Model 6's. I only wish I could've afforded a decent amp back then. Those speakers sound completely different when you drive them with 60 watts or better, but a decent 60wpc amp was a costly proposition back then.

[tugboat]

I don't think it so much that the old stuff was better. To some, a vintage solid state setup playing vintage recordings reproduces a desirable sound. For some it's not all about imaging, resolution and such. It's about enjoying the music and the equipment. Most equipment from the 60s and 70s has more character and style than most of what's produced today.

I find myself listening to my vintage system more than my modern. It has, to me, a warmer sound. That and I can enjoy all the analog meters bouncing around. :)

[George Grand]

Steve, I don't think my first real system was any better than what I have now. Not even close. But the step up TO that first decent rig, was a bigger step than any taken since. The diminishing returns thing.

[dorokusai]

"Think your old stuff was better?"

Nope.

[reeltrouble1]

young stuff trumps old stuff

RT1

[ben62670]

We still talking audio here, or women?

[danger boy]

yeah but how many of us back then were buying the quality gear we are buying now? in comparison... was your gear back then the same level as it is currently? I would suspect not. How many of us could afford a $2K system back then? but now of course you can. SUre electronics have gotten better sounding, but worse built I think.
Take your car you were driving in the 70's, and your car today.. 70's car, big ass engine, horrible gas mileage, great thrust, today's car. small engine, excellent gas mileage, no sound when running. :p

[steveinaz]

Of course the gear was not as good, but didn't your memory hint at a different conclusion? That's what this thread is addressing. As good as you thought it was--audio has come a long way.

[Face]

To some, a vintage solid state setup playing vintage recordings reproduces a desirable sound.
Yes, it does a better job covering up bad recordings.

[lakesailor]

one really need to be more specific when comparing older gear to new. For example an old Thorens or AR Turntable will annihilate a new Sony table.

Conversely most any older amplifier with a full on toroidal transformer will easily outperform most new MOSFET based amps with cheaper laminated E-I tranformers.

As for speakers it depends on manufacture and if the old speaker has been updated.

I would be pretty confident that you could build a better two channel system on a $ 1000 budget with vintage gear than what you could build with new gear.

Nothing against new gear as it has it’s place as well; however you really need to hear a good hi-end vintage two channel system to appreciate it’s merits; and by a great vintage system I don’t just mean an old Monster receiver from the 70's.

[Keiko]

I have somewhat mixed feelings to the question. As a teenager, I had one of those all in one stereo units. You remember, a turntable built in a top a receiver, w/8track and/or cassette, Panasonic IIRC. Compared to that? Hell yeah. I didn't get my first real rig until 79-80 when I was in the Army. It consisted of separates. Sansui amp, tuner and eq with a top of the line Akai cassette deck and Pioneer turntable. Bose 301's series 1 and my still in service to this day, Yamaha NS10M's. I spent many a hour with this rig and loved it. It was very warm sounding, but at the same time crystal clear and detailed. I think during this era, gear was built quite a bit more solid than the stuff of today. While at the same time there's a lot more bell's and whistles incorporated into the newer gear. Considering this, I've built my current set up with some of the newer technologies and incorporated some old school components into it.

[steveinaz]

Well, it didn't help vintages' cause that I was comparing an (apprx) $600 system to a $6500 new system. This wasn't meant to be a comparo--per se--just an "enlightening" and a final putting-to-bed any thought that my stuff sounded better "back then."

[reeltrouble1]

We still talking audio here, or women?

Oh, well in the case of the fairer sex, young stuff stomps old stuff, but old stuff is much much better than no stuff..........:D

No doubt in my mind that the new gear is simply better, there are a few old speaker designs that can still hold their own and even surpass some of todays speakers but that is just a few.

RT1

[danger boy]

Well, it didn't help vintages' cause that I was comparing an (apprx) $600 system to a $6500 new system. This wasn't meant to be a comparo--per se--just an "enlightening" and a final putting-to-bed any thought that my stuff sounded better "back then."

yeah i can understand that... of course today's gear is going to sound better.. I would surely hope so.. or else, we're all spending money for nothing. ;)

[curved]

Oh, well in the case of the fairer sex, young stuff stomps old stuff, but old stuff is much much better than no stuff..........:D

No doubt in my mind that the new gear is simply better, there are a few old speaker designs that can still hold their own and even surpass some of todays speakers but that is just a few.

RT1

lol....you all crack me up!!!!

I don't think old stuff is always better than young stuff ;)

[Motzart]

Well at the time I thought it was the cats ---!
Compaired to what I have today....not in a million years.

Looks for the time and build back then might be superior to today but the internal electronics of today...not even close waaaay better IMHO!

The nice thing is....and I'm sure many will agree.....
Today with progression of life/Job.....we can afford the nicer stuff! :D

[heiney9]

Yes and no.

Innovation and technology can be a double edged sword. When transistors were in their infancy they had issues. As the technology grew and designers like John Curl, Nelson Pass, Bob Carver and others adopted and tinckered with different topologies they created some stellar stuff and some so-so stuff.

Personally I think the hey-day was the middle to late 80's (85-89) early 90's (90-94). Separates became much more reasonable with companies like Adcom producing great sounding gear for a fraction of the price as the big boys.

Now tubes are an entirely different story and early tube gear is hard to beat if that's your game. Analog was a great thing and while this is just an opinion it has taken digital quite sometime to catch up and I think digital (IMO) is finally good enough to challenge analog. Both formats have their pluses and minuses and even after spending at afternoon (this last Sunday) as Rich's (SCompracer) and listening to his stellar vinyl rig. I'm still not 100% sold on analog, but I'm a lot closer than I was before.

Now Doug (dkg999) has a real nice sounding TT set-up and he's going to be on me to get going with an analog rig-:p.

Today their are too many choices and 75% of those choices are mediocre. It's hard to weed out the crap unless you start buying and selling stuff. It's harder and harder to audition stuff because all the great brick and mortar stores are defunct.

I tend to go with the tried and true designers and companies and I still think the 1984-1994 or so, produced the most amount of nice sounding affordable, reliable gear around. There are always exceptions of course.

H9

[SolidSqual]

Man with the way this thread is going someone is going to say the Lsis sound better than the SDAs :eek:

[heiney9]

Man with the way this thread is going someone is going to say the Lsis sound better than the SDAs :eek:

NOT I and Not a chance. Well, I suppose it depends on the gear you're using and how they are set-up. I have owned both and they each have their own character. For me it would be SDA everytime, unless I couldn't set them up to be properly heard.

[tugboat]

Yes, it does a better job covering up bad recordings.

One person's opinion. Newer setups might expose the limitations of past recordings, but that doesn't mean the recording was bad. Just because someone younger can throw a ball farther than what you could when you were younger doesn't mean you were bad at throwing.

[reeltrouble1]

Actually it was New Acoustic Dimension that first brought components focused on high sound quality at reasonable cost to the market to battle the big boys, the year was 1972, Adcom came along about 7 years later.

I still dig NAD's with big green buttons. But I have moved on to other more refined components.

RT1

[shack]

I still dig NAD's with big green buttons. But I have moved on to other more refined components.

Me too! But unlike you, I've chosen to hang on to my NADs and play with them nearly every day!

[George Grand]

Actually it was New Acoustic Dimension that first brought components focused on high sound quality at reasonable cost to the market to battle the big boys, the year was 1972, Adcom came along about 7 years later.

RT1

Substitute Acoustic Research or Dynaco for NAD in that comment and you're onto something.

[reeltrouble1]

fair enough GG, I suppose you have a DynaQuad system component tucked away somewhere in the Magic Closet. Heck they were selling kits back in the 50's when you were what 20??? They did do some hot new stuff in the 60's bounced around a bit up and down, my memory is fuzzy I think Hafler left mid 70's for Ortofon, they took a dip and then bounced back in the later 70's. A Phildelphia company.

I guess I was thinking NAD as the first to really try to mass market, I dunno, there were others as you say.

RT1

[lakesailor]

I have to say that some of the new stuff scares me. A friend recently bought a well known British pair of speakers that sell for $1K new. From 10’ away they looked good; and from 20’ away they looked amazing; however a closer inspection was downright scary.

The wood veneer was one of the cheapest I had come across. The tweeter was basically glorified plastic. For some reason there was three large drivers in this thing and yet there was next to no internal bracing. The thing ratted like crazy at higher volumes.

The all up weight was maybe 25 lbs per speaker. What is interesting is that these speakers are roughly the same dimension as my old vintage Polk 11T’s that weigh roughly 45lbs each. Wonder where the extra weight is going ?

On the “new” front I finally retired my 11T’s in favor of some Eminent Technology LFT8’s…..these speakers have some patented technology that did not exist when the 11T’s were built; however they are the best speakers I have come across since my 11T’s. And that is saying something because my 11T’s outperformed speakers that I bought from B&W, Tannoy, Mission, Wharfedale, PSB, Boston and Paradigm oftenc costing 2x-3x the money.

To me the Eminent’s Tech’s are a case of new technology can outperform old; however that is not always the case. My system is a mix of old and new and I am very happy with it.

[cubdog]

I enjoy threads of this type and agree for the most part. New technology is wonderful. Some of the current high end systems I've heard are stunning. Still I have to say, for the money, my DQ10's, Cornwalls and Adcom equipment comes close. I do own a new cdp, tt and tube amp so I'm not totally into vintage. If I could afford all new gear that is probably what I would buy but it's nice to have options.

cubdog

[gidrah]

But anywho, these were my observations---and yes, I still thoroughly enjoy hearing the music over those HPM's--for better or worse. I have also gained a whole new respect for what my main system does so right.

Rock on.

Which HPM'S? You trashed my hopes. I've been expecting some 60's from a quy for some time now.

[dkg999]

If "better" is measured by purely sound quality, then absolutely not. If "better" is measured by an emotional attachment to the sound being produced, then the question is not so easily answered.

[steveinaz]

Which HPM'S? You trashed my hopes. I've been expecting some 60's from a quy for some time now.

HPM 40's, they're darn near mint sans a little ruffage on the bottoms. Don't get me wrong, they sound sweet, very satisfying--as I stated in the first message, the wide-front/larger woofer bookshelves have some very redeeming qualities. I wish more companies would go back to this design instead of these narrow, mini-woofer turds they have now. The HPM's don't go very deep, but because they have alot of slam, the bass is more than adequate. The lower midrange is nicely brought forward as well, something that usually suffers in recent bookshelves, and makes them sound anemic in comparison.

If I were to compare, say my Energy C-3 bookshelves (6" woof/1" tweeter) with the HPM; the Energy would be described as very accurate/neutral--where the HPM would be energetic/fun. The HPM would have a more satisfying (albeit less accurate) bass and better midrange. The C-3's far smoother tweeter would have it all over the HPM's. The C-3 more reserved/civilized in presenation, the HPM a ROCKER with visceral punch.

So pick your poison.

[steveinaz]

...The HPM is like chocolate; you know it's not good for you, but you love it anyway.

[GV#27]

While my current rig is more accurate and powerful,I got just as much musical enjoyment from my Dual 505-2 ,NAD 3020A, Mirage 100 back in 80's.The NAD was a little sweetie and sonically trounced the Technics SU-V6 amp it replaced.

[George Grand]

One of those 3020's did a lot of time in both daughter's bedrooms here. All through the 90's.

[BjornB17]

Yes, it does a better job covering up bad recordings.

I personally prefer to have speakers that make bad recordings sound like utter crap. It's more enjoyable that way :D

[ajanzalone]

I am still using my old stuff!
The 1st Stereo I ever owned and it still makes me smile.:)
well I did add a sub.....

Was I supposed to upgrade?
Tony

[schwarcw]

I have some vintage Marantz, Scott and Fisher equipment that sells for more now than when it was new. Does it sound better? Better than what? Better than my big rig? NO! Better than a Circuit City or Best Buy system? Hell yes!

[mrbigbluelight]

Used to have, way back in the 70's, a pair of HPM-100's and, like Steve mentioned, you know they weren't "good" for you but ...... darn it, they were fun !

I still have a lust for the Sansui Au-11000A (the "A" had 120 watts/channel instead of the 110 watts/channel of the AU-11000 ..... thank you very much !) and the TU-9900 tuner that I had back in the day. Time has probably "enhanced" my memory, but gd that was one nice little rig. It'll be interesting to see what it'll sound like when I eventually hook up with one again.

The "thing" back in the early 70's seemed to be how many crossovers you could jam into a speaker cabinet; "3-way speakers" were less adequate than "4-way" speakers, of course. :rolleyes:
Also, there was the race on woofer size; I think it topped out at 16" on some Sansui speakers; heck, it might have been 18", I cant' recall exactly. Bigger was definitely "better", though. "Whooooomp" was King.

And does anyone else recall Koss Pro4 headphones ? Those were "it" back then; definitely better stuff out now.

[rru2s]

I think the bass on my 1979 vintage Model 10s was better than in my 2007 Monitor 70s. The 6 inch drivers were coupled to a 10 inch passive radiator that did a great job with an equalizer. I used that setup until 2006, although a lot of repairs were done over the years.

The Monitor 70s are kind of cheap sounding -- bass is very light and highs are kind of under-represented. I'm hoping to make up for it by using them in a surround system, so the total number of tweaters is greater and with a separate sub.

[ESavinon]

My new "old stuff" is :cool:.

[polkie4life]

My new "old stuff" is :cool:.

+1. Hehehe

[Face]

Then again, my mains are from 1980...