gairlochan
July 18th 08, 05:27 PM
James wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Major Jocelyn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Trevor Wilson a écrit :
>>>> "EADGBE" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem
>>>>> to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a
>>>>> thoughtful answer.
>>>>
>>>> **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am
>>>> intimately familiar with old equipment.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to
>>>>> me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new =
>>>>> good".
>>>>
>>>> **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old,
>>>> good = good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good.
>>>>
>>>>> You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear
>>>>> like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it?
>>>>
>>>> **They're deluded.
>>>
>>> Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the
>>> price you will pay for new crappy stuff.
>>
>> **Wrong. You MIGHT get a piece of adequately functioning equipment. Or
>> not. You might end up with a piece of junk wich requires vast sums to be
>> spent, in order to bring it up to a reasonable level of performance.
>>
>>>
>>>> If there
>>>>> is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid
>>>>> for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand
>>>>> for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as
>>>>> they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not!
>>>>
>>>> **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices.
>>>
>>> I see that you really but really don't know what you are talking about.
>>
>> **Really? Let me outline _my_ experience for you:
>>
>> * 1974-1979 - Service manager for Marantz Australia.
>> * 1979 - Now - Service tech for my own business. I've serviced thousands
>> of different products, including many Pioneers. Unlike you, I KNOW exactly
>> what is wrong with 1970s vinage equipment.
>>
>> The old Pioneers are better than some and worse than others, in both
>> design and construction. In all cases, they cannot come close to modern,
>> PROPERLY designed equipment, in performance on a Dollar for Dollar basis.
>> Second hand prices are, of course, difficult to assess. I can tell you,
>> however, that 1970s equipment tends to be over-priced.
>>
>> Now: Tell me about YOUR experience. How many old Pioneers have you
>> serviced?
>>
>>
>> Trevor Wilson
> I'd agree completely about the over priced comment. The prices of a lot of
> used "vintage" equipment is more than they are actually worth. A lot of it
> is nostolgia, not technical superiority. But I'd disagree some on the
> comparison of design. Class ab amps have not changed designs all that much.
> State of the art class ab amps from the 70s in good condition have excellent
> specifications and that really has not been improved on much. And those
> specifications are well better than any human detectable levels. Power
> supply designs have changed but more of that is related to making them more
> economical to manufacture and ship rather than technically superior. Much
> of the weight in old high end gear is the power transformer and big caps.
> No one can afford to ship a 50lb unit in volume any more. Making more
> efficient use of power has improved a great deal over the 70s but again that
> doesn't result in better sound.
>
>
Well I know which way I'm inclined to jump with my next purchase, especially
given my near non-existent budget - because ...
I got the surprise of my musical life last week! And I've been a musician for
35 yrs, owning what stereo gear I could afford, and also trained (but didn't
finish the training, due to serious health issues) as a radio/TV Tech a few
decades ago.
After having $1,200 of Harman Kardon integrated amp die on me after about ten
years (unrepairable, according to the shop; specialised parts no longer
unavailable), then a fortnight ago having a $3,000 British Made Creek Audio
integrated amp (the only integrated amp to rate with the separates by US
Audiophile) die after only four years (still in shop, waiting on verdict), in
a fit of musical deprivation I dragged my husband's scorned old receiver out
of the garage (after nearly dropping it due to the substantial and unexpected
weight) where it had spent the thirteen years of our marriage, unable (so I
thought) to be in the same room as my $12,000 setup. I connected up the Tannoy
Little Reds and my Nak, hit 'play' on the Nak - and got the shock of my life.
The HK in particular had been advertised as being able to produce exceptional
dynamic range due to having an extra powerful power supply. The Creek was
supposed to be even better. They were rated at 75WPC and 85WPC respectively,
but the old, late-seventies, middle of the range 35WPC Kenwood KR-4010 blew
them off-stage. Not only was it considerably louder despite its low rating,
but its much greater dynamic range told me exactly why it had weighed so much;
bloody great power transformer and a pair of big electrolytics to help out.
Some punchy amp for such low wattage. Nice tight clean bass; punchier, tighter
and cleaner than the Creek's. It had those 12" drivers thoroughly under
control.
The midrange and high end lacked the airiness and clarity of the Creek, but
I'm only just started on this new toy. Deoxit sorted the scratchy pots. When
the service manual arrives I'll be testing for DC offset at the outputs and
that should clean up the slight mid / high range distortion. I'll replace the
differential pairs if necessary. Then I'll spend a wee bit of time and money
replacing the electrolytics (why such a fuss is being made about such a simple
procedure is beyond me; you can't miss them on the board and they're not heat
sensitive enough to be a problem for inexpert solderers). Then if I get
power-hungry, or want a cleaner high end and don't yet have it, I'll go for
one of the seventies flagship models off eBay and do the same.
Of course, 35W x 2 still needs to be turned up quite a bit to match my 30W x 1
Fender valve guitar amp, but ... RMS - who needs it (apparently)? I've given
up believing in the power output on spec sheets, personally.
I need to feel my music as well as hear it; maybe it's a musician's thing ...
If I had thousands to spend, maybe I could buy a new amp with the punch which
was taken for granted in the seventies, and which would need to be couriered
to me: but I haven't ... so next stop; high end 70's
Sansui/McIntosh/Kenwood/Pioneer/Marantz/wotever.
Wish me luck, Major Jocelyn ;-)
-- Posted on news://freenews.netfront.net - Complaints to --
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Major Jocelyn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Trevor Wilson a écrit :
>>>> "EADGBE" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem
>>>>> to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a
>>>>> thoughtful answer.
>>>>
>>>> **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am
>>>> intimately familiar with old equipment.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to
>>>>> me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new =
>>>>> good".
>>>>
>>>> **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old,
>>>> good = good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good.
>>>>
>>>>> You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear
>>>>> like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it?
>>>>
>>>> **They're deluded.
>>>
>>> Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the
>>> price you will pay for new crappy stuff.
>>
>> **Wrong. You MIGHT get a piece of adequately functioning equipment. Or
>> not. You might end up with a piece of junk wich requires vast sums to be
>> spent, in order to bring it up to a reasonable level of performance.
>>
>>>
>>>> If there
>>>>> is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid
>>>>> for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand
>>>>> for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as
>>>>> they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not!
>>>>
>>>> **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices.
>>>
>>> I see that you really but really don't know what you are talking about.
>>
>> **Really? Let me outline _my_ experience for you:
>>
>> * 1974-1979 - Service manager for Marantz Australia.
>> * 1979 - Now - Service tech for my own business. I've serviced thousands
>> of different products, including many Pioneers. Unlike you, I KNOW exactly
>> what is wrong with 1970s vinage equipment.
>>
>> The old Pioneers are better than some and worse than others, in both
>> design and construction. In all cases, they cannot come close to modern,
>> PROPERLY designed equipment, in performance on a Dollar for Dollar basis.
>> Second hand prices are, of course, difficult to assess. I can tell you,
>> however, that 1970s equipment tends to be over-priced.
>>
>> Now: Tell me about YOUR experience. How many old Pioneers have you
>> serviced?
>>
>>
>> Trevor Wilson
> I'd agree completely about the over priced comment. The prices of a lot of
> used "vintage" equipment is more than they are actually worth. A lot of it
> is nostolgia, not technical superiority. But I'd disagree some on the
> comparison of design. Class ab amps have not changed designs all that much.
> State of the art class ab amps from the 70s in good condition have excellent
> specifications and that really has not been improved on much. And those
> specifications are well better than any human detectable levels. Power
> supply designs have changed but more of that is related to making them more
> economical to manufacture and ship rather than technically superior. Much
> of the weight in old high end gear is the power transformer and big caps.
> No one can afford to ship a 50lb unit in volume any more. Making more
> efficient use of power has improved a great deal over the 70s but again that
> doesn't result in better sound.
>
>
Well I know which way I'm inclined to jump with my next purchase, especially
given my near non-existent budget - because ...
I got the surprise of my musical life last week! And I've been a musician for
35 yrs, owning what stereo gear I could afford, and also trained (but didn't
finish the training, due to serious health issues) as a radio/TV Tech a few
decades ago.
After having $1,200 of Harman Kardon integrated amp die on me after about ten
years (unrepairable, according to the shop; specialised parts no longer
unavailable), then a fortnight ago having a $3,000 British Made Creek Audio
integrated amp (the only integrated amp to rate with the separates by US
Audiophile) die after only four years (still in shop, waiting on verdict), in
a fit of musical deprivation I dragged my husband's scorned old receiver out
of the garage (after nearly dropping it due to the substantial and unexpected
weight) where it had spent the thirteen years of our marriage, unable (so I
thought) to be in the same room as my $12,000 setup. I connected up the Tannoy
Little Reds and my Nak, hit 'play' on the Nak - and got the shock of my life.
The HK in particular had been advertised as being able to produce exceptional
dynamic range due to having an extra powerful power supply. The Creek was
supposed to be even better. They were rated at 75WPC and 85WPC respectively,
but the old, late-seventies, middle of the range 35WPC Kenwood KR-4010 blew
them off-stage. Not only was it considerably louder despite its low rating,
but its much greater dynamic range told me exactly why it had weighed so much;
bloody great power transformer and a pair of big electrolytics to help out.
Some punchy amp for such low wattage. Nice tight clean bass; punchier, tighter
and cleaner than the Creek's. It had those 12" drivers thoroughly under
control.
The midrange and high end lacked the airiness and clarity of the Creek, but
I'm only just started on this new toy. Deoxit sorted the scratchy pots. When
the service manual arrives I'll be testing for DC offset at the outputs and
that should clean up the slight mid / high range distortion. I'll replace the
differential pairs if necessary. Then I'll spend a wee bit of time and money
replacing the electrolytics (why such a fuss is being made about such a simple
procedure is beyond me; you can't miss them on the board and they're not heat
sensitive enough to be a problem for inexpert solderers). Then if I get
power-hungry, or want a cleaner high end and don't yet have it, I'll go for
one of the seventies flagship models off eBay and do the same.
Of course, 35W x 2 still needs to be turned up quite a bit to match my 30W x 1
Fender valve guitar amp, but ... RMS - who needs it (apparently)? I've given
up believing in the power output on spec sheets, personally.
I need to feel my music as well as hear it; maybe it's a musician's thing ...
If I had thousands to spend, maybe I could buy a new amp with the punch which
was taken for granted in the seventies, and which would need to be couriered
to me: but I haven't ... so next stop; high end 70's
Sansui/McIntosh/Kenwood/Pioneer/Marantz/wotever.
Wish me luck, Major Jocelyn ;-)
-- Posted on news://freenews.netfront.net - Complaints to --