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

[MyLittleViking]

IMHO all of the current receivers, integrated amps, and separate pre-amps suck at reproducing 2-channel audio. Almost any $200 Pioneer, Sansui, Yamaha or Marantz receiver from the 70's will blow away anything out there today. There were other companies, but these "top 4" are readily available and many are still serviceable. And talk about reliable, the fact that many are still performing as well today as they did back then is saying a lot. Not to mention they all have great tuners, and are very user friendly, and most can handle numerous inputs. A $2000 Yamaha, Sony ES, Denon, etc. built today just cannot compare for 2-channel audio.

The new stuff uses IC chips and chip line sections in their amp sections. And they all sound bad. If that isn't bad enough they typically digitize the signal and then convert it back to analog.

Yes, the 80's discrete separates are better. A PS Audio pre along with a GAS, Threshold, or Nakamichi STASIS amp will flat out BLOW AWAY the best thats out there today. About the only receiver in the 80's that could hold a candle to these was the Sony STR-GX10ES.

I want an amp with an all analog section with discrete outputs. Leave the digital to analog conversion to a different device. Am I right folks?

For those who want 7.1 for home theater. Use a pre-amp processor to take care of the digital stuff with analog outs and mono-block amps with discrete outputs.

These overpriced monster home theater receivers need to go.. I can't stand it anymore... Too many people on too many forums think that their Denon 7.1 receiver that they paid $5000 for is the "bee knees" when in fact a $200 receiver built almost 40 years ago smokes it, and separates built 25 years ago which can be had for under $1000 beat them into submission for 2-channel audio.

[MikeBrewster77]

Are you comparing apples to apples?

It sounds as is if you're specifically referencing the flaws of home theater receivers. Have you auditioned any current stereo receivers or integrated's? That would be a more fair comparison, no?

For my money (and having had more vintage gear than I care to admit) there are some very competitive 2-channel units being produced today, and at very reasonable prices - ostensibly, because there's not as significant a demand vs. home theater units.

[SEAWOLF97]

It is my unsubstantiated opinion that gear "of an era" sound better together...ie: 1970's speakers sound great with electronics of that era....and conversely .....vintage speakers are not quite as good on todays hardware.......anyone agree ? anyone even know what I'm trying to say ?

[MikeBrewster77]

anyone even know what I'm trying to say ?

Yes, I do. I have my L46's paired with a vintage Luxman integrated from approximately the same era, and it's a very nice combo. OTOH, the PT 800's are matched to far newer upstream components, and they sound marvelous.

[Akira]

It is my unsubstantiated opinion that gear "of an era" sound better together...ie: 1970's speakers sound great with electronics of that era....and conversely .....vintage speakers are not quite as good on todays hardware.......anyone agree ? anyone even know what I'm trying to say ?

As for today's gear not being as good, nothing could be further from the truth at the top end... a lot of over priced stuff but, the high end is built with extreme quality and all of the advancements incorporated over the last 50 years.
BUT, HOW MUCH BETTER?
I would venture to say very little.
I own 5 Brystons all over 20 years old. While getting a couple of my oldest ones serviced (aged 26 years plus) I asked one of their head technicians how much better the new ones are. He looked around, and when the coast was clear he said, "oh the numbers are better, but in the end not much".

AS FOR SPEAKERS???
What do you think? Are today's speakers that much better than the vintage stuff?

[Mr. Widget]

Well???

First of all, I take issue with your nomenclature. An amp is a basic power amplifier, an integrated amp is a power amp with a line stage and perhaps a phono preamp, and a typical receiver is an amplifier with a line stage, a phono preamp, and a tuner built in. I am fairly certain you know all that, but when you say, "How can a $200 amp from the 70's be better than a $2000 amp built today?" I have to disagree with you, however if you say, "How can a $200 receiver (as priced on the used market) from the 70's be better than a $2000 receiver built today?" I'd say you answered it nicely below:

The new stuff uses IC chips and chip line sections in their amp sections. And they all sound bad. If that isn't bad enough they typically digitize the signal and then convert it back to analog.

There are exquisite amps, preamps, line stages etc. all being designed and built today... but none can compete with the prices of used gear. That said, just like a used car, maintenance and repairs are often necessary with the older equipment... and just as a lightly used and garaged 60's car will perform remarkably well, time will have taken it's toll on many of the parts and the car will not really perform as new.

AS FOR SPEAKERS???
What do you think? Are today's speakers that much better than the vintage stuff?

The easy answer is that a TOTL speaker today is most certainly better than a TOTL speaker from decades ago in every imaginable objective parameter, with the possible exception of sensitivity, though the importance of sensitivity is an arguable one. The same can be said for the entry level speakers, however at the mid points it becomes difficult to define comparable models to compare.

That said, with older speakers typically being large and unpopular with the majority of today's potential buyers their market value is depressed which makes them significant bargains.


Widget

[Chas]

That said, just like a used car, maintenance and repairs are often necessary with the older equipment... and just as a lightly used and garaged 60's car will perform remarkably well, time will have taken it's toll on many of the parts and the car will not really perform as new.
Widget

Sounds like what an Alfa owner would say!

[Mr. Widget]

Sounds like what an Alfa owner would say!

Yep, some vintage gear requires a bit more love than others.


Widget

[hjames]

Sounds like what an Alfa owner would say!

Careful, I was a 2 time Alfisti! Or, as they called us around DC - Alfanatics!
(63 Giulia with 67 duetto drivetrain 1600dohc w/twin webers & 5 sp - then later a 73 GTV 2000)

[jcrobso]

I bought a Sherwood Stereo 100w/channel receiver to power my JBL Control1 plus for my PC speakers. It was $90 delivered.
40 years ago a receiver with the same specs would have cost $350~400.
Which one is better??? Which one would measure better on a test bench? Interesting question, The 40 year old one would have all discrete circuits and many electrolytic caps would have dried up. Which would one would test better or sound better?
I still have that 35W/channel Knight kit amp I built 43 years ago. A while ago I hooked it up to have listen and all it did was Buzz!! All of the power supply caps had gone bad and that is something to consider in vintage audio electronics.
At the radio station I have some VERY expensive audio gear, cost thousands of $$$$. Inside are chips lots of chips, the specs are excellent.
Which is better??? I don't know.
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!

[Wornears]

The only car out of the 30 or so I've owned, which educated me more about DIY car repair and maintenance than my three '70s Alfetta sedans (one an automatic), was an Audi 5000 Turbo.

So, Alfas have their value. <G>

[BMWCCA]

...Audi 5000 Turbo.

I sold Audis (and BMW and Porsche) for twenty years (1976-1995). Never ever felt the urge to own one. Other than the rare Turbo Quattro coupe, I enjoyed the 4000S Quattro the most since the AWD cars actually had pretty decent brakes where the FWD cars always diminished rear-wheel braking mechanically because of the front-end dive. Long-term reliability was so bad Audi practically invented the three-year lease. No one should ever be burdened with an out-or-warranty Audi. I never wished that on my friends, most of whom still happily drive BMWs today.

[MyLittleViking]

Well???

First of all, I take issue with your nomenclature. An amp is a basic power amplifier, an integrated amp is a power amp with a line stage and perhaps a phono preamp, and a typical receiver is an amplifier with a line stage, a phono preamp, and a tuner built in. I am fairly certain you know all that, but when you say, "How can a $200 amp from the 70's be better than a $2000 amp built today?" I have to disagree with you, however if you say, "How can a $200 receiver (as priced on the used market) from the 70's be better than a $2000 receiver built today?" I'd say you answered it nicely below:


Widget

I agree, I am talking mostly of the consumer based "receivers" sold in higher end stores. I KNOW there is better stuff out there, but as to the cost to sound ratio, for the most part, I'll stick with my PS Audio Pre and Threshold STASIS. This combo is about 1/5th the cost of something new that will rival it.

If you notice I mentioned a nice Sony receiver that was 2/channel and used discrete outputs. That is what I am looking for, for the speakers and set-ups I run anyways. I have processors that do the D/A converting... leave the amplification to analog!

[Titanium Dome]

IMHO all of the current receivers, integrated amps, and separate pre-amps suck at reproducing 2-channel audio. Almost any $200 Pioneer, Sansui, Yamaha or Marantz receiver from the 70's will blow away anything out there today.

So are you talking amps (as in your title) or not? Apparently not, as Widget pointed out and you more or less confirmed. "IMHO" or not, your credibility is doubtful when you contradict yourself like this. You're off topic in the first two sentences in your own thread.

And talk about reliable, the fact that many are still performing as well today as they did back then is saying a lot.

Do you have any back up for this hyperbole? Any support of this "fact"?

Not to mention they all have great tuners, and are very user friendly, and most can handle numerous inputs.

Where are you pulling this from? Have you counted inputs or done user-freindly evaluations of comparable two channel receivers? They all do not have great tuners. I was there. Many of them were very poor.

A $2000 Yamaha, Sony ES, Denon, etc. built today just cannot compare for 2-channel audio.

Why are you comparing MCH receivers to two-channel gear?

Yes, the 80's discrete separates are better. A PS Audio pre along with a GAS, Threshold, or Nakamichi STASIS amp will flat out BLOW AWAY the best thats out there today. About the only receiver in the 80's that could hold a candle to these was the Sony STR-GX10ES.

Again with the apples and oranges... and there's nothing special about 80s discrete units compared to today's discrete units, so why make these mismatched claims?

I want an amp with an all analog section with discrete outputs. Leave the digital to analog conversion to a different device. Am I right folks?

For those who want 7.1 for home theater. Use a pre-amp processor to take care of the digital stuff with analog outs and mono-block amps with discrete outputs.

And now we're back to amps, I think.

These overpriced monster home theater receivers need to go.. I can't stand it anymore... Too many people on too many forums think that their Denon 7.1 receiver that they paid $5000 for is the "bee knees" when in fact a $200 receiver built almost 40 years ago smokes it, and separates built 25 years ago which can be had for under $1000 beat them into submission for 2-channel audio.

Forty years ago is 1969. I was in college in 1969, and my buds and I spent a lot of time bugging salesmen at Hi-Fi shops, listening to every piece of equipment on display: Marantz, Sony, Pioneer, Kenwood, Panasonic, Fisher, Sansui, Scott, Sherwood, Yamaha, JVC, Onkyo, and Harman Kardon. As wonderful and nostalgic as these brands were then, other than build standards, there is little to redeem their old products today.

A trip down memory lane is nice, but it doesn't change history or reality. These are beautifully designed units using old technology and old parts, both of which are past their prime.

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.

[BMWCCA]

Forty years ago is 1969. I was in college in 1969, and my buds and I spent a lot of time bugging salesmen at Hi-Fi shops, listening to every piece of equipment on display...

High-school for me, but same experiences. By then I'd traded my "new" Kenwood on an "old" Fisher SA1000 and Mac C-20. I still have the C-20, but more out of lazy nostalgia than anything else. The Fisher proved unreliable (needed new RCA tubes annually) so that by 1972 I'd traded it on a Crown D150 that soldiers on with the Mac today.

I appreciate the value a $200 Crown PS400 offers, but I'm certain if money were no object a new "something" could best it for ten-times the cost, or less. But then maybe a few hundred spent on the old stuff to ensure it was to-spec might make for an interesting comparison. Quality 1970 equipment adjusted in price for inflation would allow quite a budget in today's equipment. While not with the same advancements as, say, computers, I'm sure today's technology properly applied provides quite the experience. May the Lord smite me with it, and may I never recover!