American Sound, "The Absolute Nothing"

[Ron Resnick]

Very interesting, Salectric.

I feel that it is difficult to take into account how innately accustomed we are to our own systems. For each of us our home system is the "correct" sound. I wish there were a way to temporarily forget about the sound of our home systems we know so intimately when auditioning a completely different system for the first time.

Imagine you didn't listen to your system for three months, and then listened to the new system before returning to your home system. I'm not suggesting you wouldn't still prefer your home system to the new system. But I wonder if their relative positioning or ranking on the spectrum might be a little bit different.

 

[Salectric]

I feel that it is difficult to take into account how innately accustomed we are to our own systems. For each of us our home system is the "correct" sound.

I agree Ron. In my case, I have spent so much time evaluating every little detail in my system that it should be no surprise that I like it. It would perhaps be more surprising if I didn’t like it.

But my larger point concerns the modern vs vintage issue. It’s tempting to think equipment gets better and better every year. Anyone reading TAS or Stereophile could easily assume that’s the case since reviewers gush over each new product or Mk 2 update. in my experience that’s not the case. SOME vintage speakers and electronics have stood the test of time and can still hold their own compared to their modern counterparts.

 

[tima]

I'm actually what you might call "cheap" and having been a dealer many, many years ago, I look for value and not just sonics. I love buying recently discontinued SOA products ...

Thanks Marty. Count me in for value. If I don't see it, I will take a pass. And happily, I believe, we each get to have own sense of what counts as value. My system consists of industrial wires, used gear and accommodation purchases. My enjoyment is well beyond my means.

If this is going to be done, it will likely only be done by an audio club or hobbyist with genuine interest.

Many of the publications will not cover products, or rarely cover products no longer available or advertisable, thus you do not see old vs. new reviews. There is some of that comparison from guys like Peter, myself and others who switched from contemporary to so called vintage, at least for speakers. The 'newer is better' mindset is strong in many.

 

[Ron Resnick]

The 'newer is better' mindset is strong in many.

+1

I advise people not to assume that an updated version of their current component will be preferable to them than their current component!

 

[KeithR]

Agree. A great topic. I was talking to Myles Astor today about this very thing. The audio industry has as much interest in doing work like this as much as the pharma industry is interested in doing a study to see if salt intake can be effective for postural hypotension due low blood pressure.( Hint- you can't patent salt!) It would be wonderful to put a modern piece of electronics up against some of the giants of yesteryear in a meaningful comparative manner. If this is going to be done, it will likely only be done by an audio club or hobbyist with genuine interest.

But Marty, the glues used in those 50-60 year old models is what really separates the design quality.

 

[PeterA]

SOME vintage speakers and electronics have stood the test of time and can still hold their own compared to their modern counterparts.

The best are coveted and in demand. They can do more than just hold their own. Some, the very best, are actually preferred by some listeners.

 

[tima]

But Marty, the glues used in those 50-60 year old models is what really separates the design quality.

This is a good point. Original glues, wood, wires, crossovers and construction are part of the reason that original construction vintage deliver the sound that they do. Patched, modified, repaired vintage speakers vs. original construction speakers are (somewhat) analogous to remastered 180g reissues vs original recordings. Just not the same.

 

[Ron Resnick]

This is a good point. Original glues, wood, wires, crossovers and construction are part of the reason that original construction vintage deliver the sound that they do. Patched, modified, repaired vintage speakers vs. original construction speakers are (somewhat) analogous to remastered 180g reissues vs original recordings. Just not the same.

Keith was being facetious.

I suspect that dried-out wood, ossified glue and debilitated capacitors contribute to some vintage speakers exhibiting sound which is characterized by some audiophiles as "vintage" from the reference point of the sound of contemporary loudspeakers. Maybe oil capacitors last forever, but I do not believe that other capacitors, all resistors and all other discrete components last forever.

 

[Lee]

+1

I advise people not to assume that an updated version of their current component will be preferable to them than their current component!

It usually is though. :devil:

 

[Ron Resnick]

It usually is though. :devil:

On a personal, idiosyncratic, statistically invalid sample set of two, on one component I prefer the new version, and on another component I prefer my old version.

 

[tima]

Keith was being facetious.

I suspect that dried-out wood, ossified glue and debilitated capacitors contribute to some vintage speakers exhibiting sound which is characterized by some audiophiles as "vintage" from the reference point of the sound of contemporary loudspeakers. Maybe oil capacitors last forever, but I do not believe that other capacitors, all resistors and all other discrete components last forever.

If Keith was being facetious, he still hit the mark though perhaps not realizing it.

I understand you to be talking your book as an audio dealer of new equipment. And you beg the question with your "dried-out wood, ossified glue and debilitated capacitors" characterization.

Sure stuff wears out, but that does not change the point about original construction and materials vs. re-work or repairs with different material that change the sound from the original sound. That is equally true with contemporary gear.

 

[PeterA]

It usually is though. :devil:

Quite a few people think that the original Lamm ML2 sounds better than the ML2.1. The transformers and binding posts are better in the former. My dealer told me that the best version of my speakers is the oldest first version in original condition.

Some people prefer the older father designed Wilson speakers.

 

[thekong]

Last year, one of my friends was considering upgrading his DCS digital stack to the new APEX version, and around 10 of us accompanied him to the dealer for the audition. The dealer had both the old and new versions on display, so switching could be done in less than a minute.

In the end, half of us preferred the new version, and the other half preferred the old one. So, which is better just depends on your preference!

 

[tima]

Quite a few people think that the original Lamm ML2 sounds better than the ML2.1.

The ML2.2 (which I use) is different inasmuch as it has the output gain stage of the ML3 amplifier.

 

[bonzo75]

It would be wonderful to put a modern piece of electronics up against some of the giants of yesteryear in a meaningful comparative manner. If this is going to be done, it will likely only be done by an audio club or hobbyist with genuine interest.

This has been doe so many times maybe just not on WBF. Since you mentioned electronics, doubt anyone is recommending old amplifiers or phonos. That said, some designers in their modern electronics do use NOS capacitors, and circuits used could have been inspired ages ago, and as you know many valve electronics sound the best with old stock.

 

[dcathro]

The 'newer is better' mindset is strong in many.

So is the dearer is better mindset!

 

[dcathro]

I agree Ron. In my case, I have spent so much time evaluating every little detail in my system that it should be no surprise that I like it. It would perhaps be more surprising if I didn’t like it.

But my larger point concerns the modern vs vintage issue. It’s tempting to think equipment gets better and better every year. Anyone reading TAS or Stereophile could easily assume that’s the case since reviewers gush over each new product or Mk 2 update. in my experience that’s not the case. SOME vintage speakers and electronics have stood the test of time and can still hold their own compared to their modern counterparts.

Reviewers will never say that the mk5 sucks compared with the old mk3.

 

[dcathro]

+1

I advise people not to assume that an updated version of their current component will be preferable to them than their current component!

I have had disappointments when upgrading in the past.

 

[dcathro]

It usually is though. :devil:

You're such an optimist!

 

[dcathro]

Last year, one of my friends was considering upgrading his DCS digital stack to the new APEX version, and around 10 of us accompanied him to the dealer for the audition. The dealer had both the old and new versions on display, so switching could be done in less than a minute.

In the end, half of us preferred the new version, and the other half preferred the old one. So, which is better just depends on your preference!

So half of you must have been WRONG!!!!