Look How Far Back We've Come <<<<

[ChrisCoaster]

http://www.oaktreevintage.com/Stereo_Receivers.htm


:.(.

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://www.oaktreevintage.com/Stereo_Receivers.htm
>
>
> :.(.

Are you saying there HAS been progress or there HASN'T? I still have a
Yamaha CR1000 receiver, and it still works perfectly, so I'd say there has
been NO real progress in amplifiers and tuners since 1975.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[ChrisCoaster]

On Sep 29, 9:04*am, "Serge Auckland" >
wrote:
> "ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >http://www.oaktreevintage.com/Stereo_Receivers.htm
>
> > :.(.
>
> Are you saying there HAS been progress or there HASN'T? *I still have a
> Yamaha CR1000 receiver, and it still works perfectly, so I'd say there has
> been NO real progress in amplifiers and tuners since 1975.
>
> S.
> --http://audiopages.googlepages.com
__________________
Progress in multichannel tecnology - yes.

An overall DUMBING DOWN of the faces of modern receivers?
Absolutely. Loudness controls, Hi-pass, lo-pass filters, global mono
switches(not just for FM stereo), have all but disappeared.

A modern day 21 year old getting
http://www.oaktreevintage.com/web_photos/Stereo_Receivers/Kenwood_KR-4010_Stereo_Receiver_web.jpg
on his/her birthday probably wouldn't have a CLUE as to how to get
the sound from their CD or mp3 player or TV through the damn thing!

Sound quality? Quite possibly a slight regression since 30 years ago,
I'd agree.

[Steven Sullivan]

ChrisCoaster > wrote:
> On Sep 29, 9:04*am, "Serge Auckland" >
> wrote:
> > "ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> > >http://www.oaktreevintage.com/Stereo_Receivers.htm
> >
> > > :.(.
> >
> > Are you saying there HAS been progress or there HASN'T? *I still have a
> > Yamaha CR1000 receiver, and it still works perfectly, so I'd say there has
> > been NO real progress in amplifiers and tuners since 1975.
> >
> > S.
> > --http://audiopages.googlepages.com
> __________________
> Progress in multichannel tecnology - yes.

> An overall DUMBING DOWN of the faces of modern receivers?
> Absolutely. Loudness controls, Hi-pass, lo-pass filters, global mono
> switches(not just for FM stereo), have all but disappeared.

Theirs lots mroe controls than that avaialble on most AVRs. But they
don't have faceplate buttons...or if they do, they're hidden behind a
panel.

> A modern day 21 year old getting
> http://www.oaktreevintage.com/web_photos/Stereo_Receivers/Kenwood_KR-4010_Stereo_Receiver_web.jpg
> on his/her birthday probably wouldn't have a CLUE as to how to get
> the sound from their CD or mp3 player or TV through the damn thing!

And they wouldn't have a clue how to use loudness controls, hi/lowpass switched,
mono either. They'd just hook the speakers up, plug the CDP into the
"CD ' jacks, and go. Later on they might read the manual. Maybe.

Pretty much the same thing could be done with that AVR.

> Sound quality? Quite possibly a slight regression since 30 years ago,
> I'd agree.

By what metric?


--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Arny Krueger]

"Serge Auckland" > wrote in
message

> "ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
> ...

>> http://www.oaktreevintage.com/Stereo_Receivers.htm

>> :.(.

> Are you saying there HAS been progress or there HASN'T?

The cost for a comparable-performance stereo receiver has dropped
precipitously, especially if inflation is considered.

If we include the tubed units, then the size, weight, and power consumption
has also dropped tremendously.

Convenience has gone up, as even the under-$100 100 wpc cheapies have
effective remote controls.

Reliability has increased significantly in some ways, as modern receivers
generally don't have the trouble-prone master selector switch with a zillion
decks and contacts.

> I still have a Yamaha CR1000 receiver, and it still works
> perfectly, so I'd say there has been NO real progress in
> amplifiers and tuners since 1975.

What would one cost you today, after the effects of inflation?

How are the controls in terms of noise when being operated?

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Serge Auckland" > wrote in
> message
>
>> "ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> http://www.oaktreevintage.com/Stereo_Receivers.htm
>
>>> :.(.
>
>> Are you saying there HAS been progress or there HASN'T?
>
> The cost for a comparable-performance stereo receiver has dropped
> precipitously, especially if inflation is considered.
>
> If we include the tubed units, then the size, weight, and power
> consumption has also dropped tremendously.
>
> Convenience has gone up, as even the under-$100 100 wpc cheapies have
> effective remote controls.
>
> Reliability has increased significantly in some ways, as modern receivers
> generally don't have the trouble-prone master selector switch with a
> zillion decks and contacts.
>
>> I still have a Yamaha CR1000 receiver, and it still works
>> perfectly, so I'd say there has been NO real progress in
>> amplifiers and tuners since 1975.
>
> What would one cost you today, after the effects of inflation?
>
> How are the controls in terms of noise when being operated?
>
>
No idea of today's costs, but it would be expensive! All those
hand-assembled PCBs, lots of hand wiring etc. Of course nobody would dream
of making one that way these days, it would all be software controlled, with
soft switches and controls, so you can't really compare manufacturing costs
then and now as the techniques are totally different. The performance,
however, is as good as any piece of modern equipment, although the modern
kit would cost a tiny fraction of the equivalent cost of the old stuff for
equivalent performance. That's what I meant by no progress:- Audio equipment
was transparent then, and is transparent now. It now just costs an awful lot
less, certainly relatively, and in many cases absolutely.
As to the controls, they were a bit noisy when I rescued the receiver from
someone's garage (Thanks, Freecycle), but a squirt of contact cleaner and
they're now fine.
S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Serge Auckland" > wrote in
message
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Serge Auckland" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> "ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> http://www.oaktreevintage.com/Stereo_Receivers.htm
>>
>>>> :.(.
>>
>>> Are you saying there HAS been progress or there HASN'T?
>>
>> The cost for a comparable-performance stereo receiver
>> has dropped precipitously, especially if inflation is
>> considered. If we include the tubed units, then the size, weight,
>> and power consumption has also dropped tremendously.
>>
>> Convenience has gone up, as even the under-$100 100 wpc
>> cheapies have effective remote controls.
>>
>> Reliability has increased significantly in some ways, as
>> modern receivers generally don't have the trouble-prone
>> master selector switch with a zillion decks and contacts.
>>
>>> I still have a Yamaha CR1000 receiver, and it still
>>> works perfectly, so I'd say there has been NO real
>>> progress in amplifiers and tuners since 1975.
>>
>> What would one cost you today, after the effects of
>> inflation? How are the controls in terms of noise when being
>> operated?
> No idea of today's costs, but it would be expensive! All
> those hand-assembled PCBs, lots of hand wiring etc. Of
> course nobody would dream of making one that way these
> days, it would all be software controlled, with soft
> switches and controls,

That is pretty much what you get if you buy a sub-$100 100 wpc stereo
receiver.

> so you can't really compare
> manufacturing costs then and now as the techniques are
> totally different.

Point being that from the standpoint of the purchaser, good stereo receivers
have become very inexpensive. For example I believe I paid $300+ in 1967 for
my Heath AR15 which was competitive for a 60 wpc AM-FM stereo receiver.
AFAIK my $70 Hecho En Chine Sherwood outperforms it in every way.

> The performance, however, is as good
> as any piece of modern equipment, although the modern kit
> would cost a tiny fraction of the equivalent cost of the
> old stuff for equivalent performance. That's what I meant
> by no progress:- Audio equipment was transparent then,
> and is transparent now.

Interestingly enough, some of the early SS stereo receivers weren't
sonically transparent with many speakers. They used single-ended power
supplies with output coupling capacitors that were outside the feedback
loop, and modest-sized by modern standards. With many speakers of the day,
such as AR-3s, there is a sort of resonance that takes place between the
series coupling cap and the speaker, which causes an audible rise at the low
end. Compare that to a receiver that had split power supplies and
direct-coupled output, and the lack of often-euphonic rise was pretty
obvious.

> It now just costs an awful lot
> less, certainly relatively, and in many cases absolutely.

The parts count is way down, and such parts as are still there are
inherently less expensive.

> As to the controls, they were a bit noisy when I rescued
> the receiver from someone's garage (Thanks, Freecycle),
> but a squirt of contact cleaner and they're now fine.

IME, the question will be - quiet for how long? Of course you can squirt
them again, but the time between squirts IME tends to shrink.