How can a $200 amp from the 70's be better than a $2000 amp built today?

[Mr. Widget]

Originally Posted by Titanium Dome

Guess what? Sherwood, Onkyo, Sony, Yamaha, and Harman Kardon still make stereo receivers under $300, as do Denon and Outlaw among others. Any one of these will be better than most receivers from the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and unless you find a NIB old stock 80s receiver that was hermetically sealed and stored in optimum conditions (no heat, no cold, no humidity, no vibration). Even the best of the 80s will need significant restoration to come back to original operation quality, so you can address the old parts but not the old technology.

I'd suggest that by the '80s the lower priced pieces were all pretty piss poor as they are today. Certainly most vintage gear needs work, but if you find a good tech, you will find that the above average receivers from the '70s like the Marantz, Denon, Pioneer, etc. do sound better than the new affordable gear of today... I am talking two-channel to two channel. As for convenience, the remotes are hard to give up, but if you are after sound quality alone, a refurbished vintage piece is hard to beat.


Widget

[SEAWOLF97]

I bought a near TOTL Marantz 2385 receiver a couple of months ago ....yes , it did require some refurbishing ......for 2 channel it sounded very good...have never heard any receiver sound better

BUT it wasnt $200 new or even now.

[jcrobso]

I went into an Allied Radio store in Oak Park just after the store opened there was sales one person in the store. I told him I just wanted to listen to Hi-Fi gear to help make purchase decision (OK, I did really have any money, but I didn't tell him that) I spent over two hours listened to everything in the room. The main Allied store in Chicago was all wise busy and they weren't going to let a 19 year old kid just listen to his hearts content when there were customers that had money there.
The Listening room was about 25~30' at the Oak Park store. Most of the top gear of that era was there, Mac, HH Scott, JBL, Jensen, AR, etc.
I listened most of everything there, I noticed that switching from one amp to another did not make as big a difference in the sound as switching from speaker to speaker did. From that point on I just concentrated on speakers, I really came in to listen to JBL, but decided to listen others as well.
One of the "Hot" brands of day Acoustic Research (AR) I did listen to them but I just have never liked the sound, The Jensen's were OK, as were the University. I had heard a Paragon at the Chicago store, but I really wanted to spend time listening to speakers that I could someday actually afford. And that is what I did at the store, to this day I don't spend a lot of time on amps. Don't get me wrong I do believe that good amp is important, I just most of my emphasis on the speakers!

[Ian Mackenzie]

I think we need to see specific examples to validate the arguement.

From where I stand most $200 solid state amps from the 70's were absolute "SHIT" and it has been proven so by virtue of the manner in which they were designed to produce specs on paper that sold (marketed) amps compared to todays domestic amplifiers.

If we take $200 in the 70s and add inflation it would be more like $2000.

Most $2000 amps of today have technology and design engineering that has trickled down from top of the range products costing 3 x from a few years ago.

What is probably more amusing is that a $200 amp of today is just way better than a $200 amp from the 70's because of the technology inside it.

I have a Jaycar 20+20 watt amp with dual valve front end and thick film solid state output stage that was just $200.
Its not too far behind a Dared Audio $2000 valve amp.

[SEAWOLF97]

Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie

If we take $200 in the 70s and add inflation it would be more like $2000.

What cost $200 in 1970 would cost $1097.17 in 2008.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

but YES....my 1969 Pioneer TOTL receiver had huge amounts of distortion, unlistenable today.

Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie

What is probably more amusing is that a $200 amp of today is just way better than a $200 amp from the 70's because of the technology inside it.

can't seem to find any ...and afraid to go to WallyMart to check

LATER: just paged thru the AudioAdvisor catalog...the cheapest 2 channel receiver there was $499

[Titanium Dome]

I loved my then new Kenwood KR-6160. It looked cool and seemed to be built like a tank, but like its American iron counterpart, the V-8 engine, it was overbuilt and under-engineered. As a stock V-8 today is to a stock V-8 of the era, there's just no comparison in actual performance, sophistication, engineering, or technology.

While my KR-6160, rebuilt three times, still looks pretty cool, it's just crap compared to the Panasonic XR-10 digital receiver I got for close to $100 at Ken Crane's a couple years ago.

[Mr. Widget]

Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie

I think we need to see specific examples to validate the arguement.

Very good point Ian.

I use as my baseline a Marantz 2275 that I picked up a few years back for $250. Comparing it to all of the Denon, NAD, Onkyo etc. integrateds that I have heard in recent years, it does sound closer to the audiophile stuff than the mass produced gear we get today.

Widget

[louped garouv]

Originally Posted by jcrobso

45 years ago I learned that speakers are the most important part of a sound system! This has NOT changed, it is still true today!

and I thought the room was just as important....

[Titanium Dome]

Originally Posted by louped garouv

and I thought the room was just as important....

Heh, it took me 25 years to really think about that and another ten to get serious. Now I CAN'T STOP THINKING about it.

Well, I think about that and about what else I missed or must be doing wrong. When it gets too crazy, I just go downstairs, turn up the volume, and forget about it.

[BMWCCA]

So is it amps from the '70s that cost $200 then, or is it amps from the '70s that sell for $200 now?

My Crown D150 listed for $399 when I bought it in '73 but I got $120 in trade for the Fisher SA1000 I paid $90 for a couple of years earlier. Today it's worth maybe $200, but then I have PS400s I paid $100 for. So what are we comparing here? Apples and oranges, for sure.

[Mr. Widget]

Originally Posted by louped garouv

and I thought the room was just as important....

The speakers and the room will make more of a difference than an amp, preamp, source, or yes, even cables.

That said, listening to my speakers in my room with a variety of amps including vintage SS designs from the '70s, more modern Haflers, vintage tube and solid state McIntosh amps, and even some modern single ended tube designs... they each have a sound of their own. Some sound decidedly better, some rather poor, and others simply different.

I have been uniformly disappointed by the mainstream more affordable offerings from everyone in the receiver/integrated amp arena. The all analog contemporary 2 channel designs without a DSP are certainly the best of the bunch, but they still sound hard, veiled, and rather unpleasant compared to the better vintage and contemporary designs.


Widget

[jcrobso]

Originally Posted by louped garouv

and I thought the room was just as important....

But no room on earth is going to make bad set of speakers sound good.
I don't care how good the room is a Bo$e speaker will still sound bad!

[SEAWOLF97]

Originally Posted by jcrobso

But no room on earth is going to make bad set of speakers sound good.
I don't care how good the room is a Bo$e speaker will still sound bad!

We used to have an "Incredible Universe" store where Fryes now is ...it was a lot more fun ...lots of listening rooms...hands on stuff

The permanent Bose demo room was stacked in the manf's favor, of course...pick the room, pick the program material , etc....but their demo did sound OK ....not enuff to make me interested....but not bad....couldnt even tell you which system it was ...seems like it was some $2k deal....mebbe a LifeStyle 95 or some such..

[MikeBrewster77]

Originally Posted by jcrobso

But no room on earth is going to make bad set of speakers sound good.
I don't care how good the room is a Bo$e speaker will still sound bad!

Very true, yet I seem to recall hearing stories that it wasn't only the auditioning space that was designed in Bose systems' favour, but that they also had a substantial amount of additional equalization equipment (not the stock units sold with the 901's mind you) hidden "behind the curtain" that significantly helped to enhance their sound within that controlled environment.

Thus the audition in your own listening environment and with your own upstream components credo! I've been fortunate to work with folks who had such guarantees (30 days+ in your own home to decide) and would strongly suggest anyone auditioning new gear attempting their hardest to find the same type of arrangement!

Unfortunately that arrangement hasn't applied to me re: newer JBL offerings, since I've yet to find a local dealer - but that's not going to be any surprise to anyone here. Luckily, the newer JBL's I've purchased unheard have MORE than rewarded my reluctance to buy before auditioning.

[Ducatista47]

We still have a local audio store here that lets you take stuff home and try it out - before you buy it. They understand synergy and rooms.

I know how lucky we are. If they close I guess I will be satisfied with what I have. But I will miss dealing with two good friends.

Clark