Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 167

Thread: Who Can Speak From Experience About Comparing Vintage Gear to Modern Equipment?

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,939
    Steve,

    I know where you are coming from.

    Widget,

    All I can say is if you are still deciding on what you think right you still have not got there yet if you know what I mean.

    I agree that some of the best speakers are quite dynamic and have quite amzing HF extension.

    However, they (the best) only convey what they are fed being that the more ideal a speaker is the more efficient and effective it is in transforming the current from the amp into vibrations and sound.

    Many people get confused about what they are listening to.

    Is it the speakers or the power/pre amp?

    Given the law of diminishing returns if your speaker is ultimately accurate what you end up with is what the amps are doing and this is one of the most perplexing aspect of audio to appreciate. Unfortunately too few have the opportunity to appreciate and compare what these differences are and it is assumed that the speaker system is to blame when in fact the amps are infact not blameless.

    This is why I regard amplifiers as more important than anything else after arriving at an accurate loudspeaker. The amplifier amplifies voltage and current under dynamic conditions and one would be very niave to imagine they are perfect and they all sound the same. Two active devices with similar specifications can sound totally different and this applies to not just Valves and BJT transisters and Fets. Often large amounts of feedback are used it hide these non linearities but feedback brings with it its own curse by destroying the true dynamic transient character of music and an electronic glare which listeners refer to a listening fatigue.

    In essense, a remarkable loudspeaker will often sound less flattering on the best amplification. As Steve said earlier, the excessive, distortion laden yet dynamically lacking highs are OFTEN passed off as detail.

    Wrong.

    A very high quality amp will provide more fine details, trasnients and transparency without ever sounding tiring. There is also a far less compelling tendency to increase the volume level to reveal more transients and details.

    I think this is why many good vintage loudspeakers sounded good in the early days before the downward spiral of modern solid state amplfiers.

    Fortunately this trend is reversing in a small way and we are seeing the rebirth of many classic loudspeaker systems using SOA amplification.

  2. #32
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
    All I can say is if you are still deciding on what you think right you still have not got there yet if you know what I mean.
    I almost never know what you mean.

    I think most of us have a pretty good idea about what we think is right. We just don't always agree on what right is.


    Widget

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,939
    I was a skeptic caught up in the circle of denial once to until I started listening to the right people and hearing the right things.

    Go out and buy yourself a real amplifer (Halcro) and set of speakers (JBL .........) and shut up.

  4. #34
    Obsolete
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NLA
    Posts
    12,193
    Quote Originally Posted by duaneage
    Someday we will be talking about todays technology as vintage, right?
    Um, no... it isn't built to last that long.

  5. #35
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,163
    Um, no... it isn't built to last that long.

    In general that's true but one exception is the drivers we use. Bet those will still be working At least that hasn't changed.

    Rob

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,939
    Just make sue you don't over drive the old Alnico woofers.

  7. #37
    RIP 2010 scott fitlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    4,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Giskard
    Um, no... it isn't built to last that long.
    Sadly, when it comes to todays pro stuff, your statement is really, really true!
    scottyj

  8. #38
    RIP 2010 scott fitlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    4,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
    Many people rip on contemporary gear... and I'd agree if my baseline for comparison was what is available at Best Buy, Circuit City and the rest... you can't find a decent speaker or amp or even computer monitor in any of those places... they sell cheap junk at low prices. The fact is that most of us or our parents couldn't afford a pair of Hartsfields or a Paragon when they were new, and most of us can't afford today's versions either... the distortion in our comparison of today's gear versus yesterday's gear is that there are some remarkably good values on the used market so we can afford some outrageously good vintage stuff even if we can't afford the really great new stuff.



    Widget
    OK, Im NOT most people, and Ill make a direct brand to brand comparison here. Crown -vs- Bryston! The Crown Power Line 2 and D-75 against the Bryston 2B LP, and the Bryston 3B ST against a Crown D-150A. All the amps mentioned are well made and cost alot of money considering the amount of power available from them, as they are not high power amps.

    Crown D-75,s make a pleasing, nicely rounded top end, and sounds clean. The Bryston 2B LP, sounds cleaner, but has a bright metallic tonality to it, one you cant EQ out, and the Bryston always fatigues me after a while, yet, it IS audibly cleaner and more powerful than its crown counterpart, just never as pleasing.

    The Crown D-150A is arguably NOT the highest resolution amplifier, yet this little crown performs remarkably well on HF like JBL 2441 drivers. Conversely, I have listened to my Bryston 3B ST on many occasions, I hear the amps cleaner circuitry, it does have more power then the 150, it is more resolving of minute details in recordings, BUT, it is a god awful bright, metallic and mechanical sounding mid/hf to my ears. I have many Brystons, and they cost a pretty penny, they aint cheapo crapo from China. And yet? I cant stand the Bryston sound.

    The funny thing is, and I learned this the expensive way, what makes music sound right, isnt always whats technically 100% correct, or the cleanest and most accurate device, notes through the Crowns just sound more real, like music sounds, and through the Brystons, very clean, but quite tiring to listen to after a while. Most importantly, I also learned that just because it costs as much as a Mercedes S-500, and has snob appeal DOES NOT guarantee good sound. I find many make this mistake with audio! If it costs more, it must be better. I have made this mistake myself. Boutique consumer, and pro audio manufacturers play upon this phenomenon too. Believe that!

    scottyj

  9. #39
    Senior Member edgewound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,776
    Scotty...

    Maybe the 2441 isn't the right complement for the Bryston. Could be the 2441 isn't good (accurate) enough for that amp.

    You make the great points of finding the gear that sounds right together.
    Edgewound...JBL Pro Authorized...since 1988
    Upland Loudspeaker Service, Upland, CA

  10. #40
    RIP 2011 Zilch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    9,963
    Quote Originally Posted by edgewound
    Could be the 2441 isn't good (accurate) enough for that amp.
    Some drivers can't handle the TRUTH?

    [Dear gawd, say it ain't SO.... ]

  11. #41
    RIP 2010 scott fitlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    4,343
    Quote Originally Posted by edgewound
    Scotty...

    Maybe the 2441 isn't the right complement for the Bryston. Could be the 2441 isn't good (accurate) enough for that amp.

    You make the great points of finding the gear that sounds right together.
    I, too, believe in synergy between components. Certain brand and model drivers just work so well with a certain brand and specific model of amplifier, very true! But, I have tried my TAD 4002,s with the Bryston 3B ST as well, and I hated that even more.

    Then, I had the Bryston xovers, the 10B,s, and also, didnt work out well for me, at all. Very bright, and somewhat metallic sounding.

    I listened to the B & W 802,s at my freinds house, he had several amps on hand to audition, McIntosh, Classe, and Bryston. The Mc was too dark sounding with the B & W,s, the Bryston had a much brighter sound, but being cone mid speakers, wasnt blowing me out of the room, but the highs still sounded metallic and we didnt love the bass with this combo. And the Classe was the surprise of the day, sweet and clear, warm but not overly so, good bass, nice image, the B & W,s liked the Classe best of all. So, this is what he purchased to run them.

    But, as I said, Bryston is well made, fairly expensive, but not my cup of tea!

    Another combo I loved was a Dynaudio monitor setup being driven by a Yamaha Natural Sound amplifier from the 80,s! Say what you want, but the setup rocked, and sounded terrific.
    scottyj

  12. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,939
    Scotty,

    Your've got great ears and you nailed it.

    You spoke from your own wide practical experience, no hype just the facts, excellent post.

  13. #43
    RIP 2014 Ken Pachkowsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Baja, Mexico
    Posts
    1,696
    Like a good book, this thread has made me late for work.

    Excellent debate.

    Ken

  14. #44
    Senior Member SUPERBEE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Sunny San Diego California
    Posts
    1,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
    Scotty,

    Your've got great ears and you nailed it.

    You spoke from your own wide practical experience, no hype just the facts, excellent post.

    Ummmmmmm..........


    I think that is what this thread is about. Rather than enter into a pissing contest, lets talk about good and bad combos, both vintage and new that we know from actually LISTENING to them.....

    Like I can tell you the Fisher X-101-C sounds horrible on a JBL Paragon compared to a Fisher 500-C which sounds EXCELLENT on a JBL Paragon.

    Or.........The Fisher X-101-C sounds GREAT when matched up to a set of bland JBL 2060s.

    As I have said all my life........"I dont know much.......But I know what I like"

  15. #45
    RIP 2010 scott fitlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    4,343
    Quote Originally Posted by SUPERBEE
    "But I know what I like"
    At the end of the day, this is what its all about! Since you are the one your system must please, it should be what you like, not what someone else says is right.

    The big debate that was going on when I was first learning how to turn the stereo on, was the JBL L100 or the AR3a. The classical music lovers said the AR3a was the right speaker, but when I was listening to the Jackson 5 at my uncles house, the JBL,s had that life, that ryhthm, that dynamic pulse.

    OTOH, my mom had the AR3a,s, and they sounded boring. But this is correct they told me, the JBL bass is exaggerated. Who cares? The JBL,s sound good, your AR,s sound stale!

    And the L100,s sounded really good with a Fisher reciever, I dont remember what model it was, though.
    scottyj

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •