Older gear vs. The current crop

[DaveyF]

As many of you know, I hold dear my older ARC D70 Mk2. It has proven a fierce contender vs. many other newer and highly thought of current designs. Yesterday, we ( my a'phile group and I) did a shoot-out with my ARC vs. a MAC MC 275. WOW, what an eye-opener.
The MAC which was an original model and not one of the re-issues, although it had had its speaker cable strips replaced, was a real contender. In some ways, the group preferred the MAC to my ARC ( mostly in the older amps ability to hold onto notes a little longer and a very slight edge in the bottom end retrieval) the ARC was preferred in its imaging abilities and in the way the amp was able to define leading edges a little better and in its overall portrayal of mids.

We then AB'ed both amps against a current Coincident Dragon monoblock. In my system, the Coincident was able to image as well as my ARC and slightly more accurately than the Mac. OTOH, the Coincident was also seen to run out of steam far more easily than the other two and seemed to bring a slight haze to the picture In a friends system, consisting of Wilson Sophia 3's and an ARC Ref 5 preamp, running a VPI HRX table with 10.5 arm and a Shelter cartridge, the Coincidents were a very poor second compared to the Mac. The Mac drove the Sophia's well and was far more able in the frequency extremes. ( Perhaps there was a mis-match between the Dragons and the Sophia's , although we all felt that most likely wasn't the case).

We then substituted in a Jolida JD-1000P that we had on hand and did an AB vs. my ARC. The Jolida was thought by all to be bright and grainy with far less ability to portray depth or define an image than the old ARC.
So, is it always an option to Buy the newest/latest gear and expect to get better reproduction because you have bought the current flavor of the month......This experience says absolutely not

What are your experiences in this area

 

[Mike Lavigne]

As many of you know, I hold dear my older ARC D70 Mk2. It has proven a fierce contender vs. many other newer and highly thought of current designs. Yesterday, we ( my a'phile group and I) did a shoot-out with my ARC vs. a MAC MC 275. WOW, what an eye-opener.
The MAC which was an original model and not one of the re-issues, although it had had its speaker cable strips replaced, was a real contender. In some ways, the group preferred the MAC to my ARC ( mostly in the older amps ability to hold onto notes a little longer and a very slight edge in the bottom end retrieval) the ARC was preferred in its imaging abilities and in the way the amp was able to define leading edges a little better and in its overall portrayal of mids.

We then AB'ed both amps against a current Coincident Dragon monoblock. In my system, the Coincident was able to image as well as my ARC and slightly more accurately than the Mac. OTOH, the Coincident was also seen to run out of steam far more easily than the other two and seemed to bring a slight haze to the picture In a friends system, consisting of Wilson Sophia 3's and an ARC Ref 5 preamp, running a VPI HRX table with 10.5 arm and a Shelter cartridge, the Coincidents were a very poor second compared to the Mac. The Mac drove the Sophia's well and was far more able in the frequency extremes. ( Perhaps there was a mis-match between the Dragons and the Sophia's , although we all felt that most likely wasn't the case).

We then substituted in a Jolida JD-1000P that we had on hand and did an AB vs. my ARC. The Jolida was thought by all to be bright and grainy with far less ability to portray depth or define an image than the old ARC.
So, is it always an option to Buy the newest/latest gear and expect to get better reproduction because you have bought the current flavor of the month......This experience says absolutely not

What are your experiences in this area

nice write-up on your experiences....and i'm not surprised by your result. your ARC D70 Mk2 and the McIntosh MC275 are iconic products. by that i mean they do a great job of portraying the inner texture of the musical message, even relative to other good quality products of their time. i don't have any personal experience with the Coincident or Jolida amplifiers you mention; for all i know they may be top notch products. however, when you compare products from different eras you need to consider that some of the assembly methods and quality of parts etc. on these vintage pieces might be now cost prohibitive on what might otherwise seem to be eqivilant products. so some aspects of the performance of these vintage pieces might be better than current products.

when i went thru my 'vintage tt phase', it was easy to hear what the Garrard 301, or Technics SP-10 mK2 or Mk3 did which was quite a bit better than turntables costing up to 5 times more today.

it's important to note that there were many dozens, even hundreds, similar vintage products of their eras. only a few can now compete and push current technology products.

which is not to say that these vintage tt's are better than most or all current tt's. but due to the development given those products in their eras, they do things that are more challenging to current production realities.

my $20k Beat tt is better than any of those vintage tt's, but it's a special product which used those vintage tt's as the standard to be improved upon.

i'm also betting that when you compare the MC275 or ARC D70 Mk2 to the very best of the current crop of tube amplifiers they could not quite keep up. it's a compliment to those products how much it takes to surpass them.

 

[c1ferrari]

Vintage gear is great...

I'm inspired to maintain two systems...a vintage system anchored by Beveridge II's and Rogers LS 3/5A's and a contemporary system anchored by Dali MegaLine III's.

Valves are common to either system

 

[flez007]

DaveyF, I have as well experienced that case quite often, in my room and others as well. It would be dangerous for me to fall into generalizations here, but seems that almost all new designs in amplification bring additional sonic artifacts that rest foundation in the "musicality" department (just posted at that thread, so I have the term fresh )

One can also add to this observation many "new" designs based in "old" technology, like my Viva Solista....

 

[microstrip]

(...)
What are your experiences in this area

The ARC D70 II and the SP8 were my first "serious" hifi and I still have great memories of them. The SP8 was followed by a SP10 and some years ago I could re-listen to the SP10 against a top current ARC Reference preamplifier in my system and was a little disappointed with the SP10. I associate this to the lack of synergy between the old preamplifier and my current system at that time. They did not mix.

But I am sure that if I reassembled a compatible system using top pieces of the same vintage I would get a great system. This is to say that I would not advise anyone to take an old vintage piece and insert it in a system built using recent equipment. The great old designers tuned their equipment for systems with some characteristics that are quite different from what we have today.

Surely we can have exceptions, but if you want vintage, IMHO, you should have all vintage.

 

[JackD201]

I'm inclined to agree but will make the exception for sources, especially digital sources.

 

[RogerD]

My biggest disappointment is in the lack of preamp features and versatility. It would be almost impossible to find a current preamp that allows for 3 RTR's 2 TT's, 3 amplifiers,balance,tone,mono,stereo reverse,L+R,R+L,ect,and the list goes on.

I think many well designed vintage pieces can be upgraded to compete with today's group. The only issue is finding somebody willing to do the work. The age factor for some antiques will also pose a different problem set. All in all, they just don't build them like they use to.

 

[naturephoto1]

My biggest disappointment is in the lack of preamp features and versatility. It would be almost impossible to find a current preamp that allows for 3 RTR's 2 TT's, 3 amplifiers,balance,tone,mono,stereo reverse,L+R,R+L,ect,and the list goes on.

I think many well designed vintage pieces can be upgraded to compete with today's group. The only issue is finding somebody willing to do the work. The age factor for some antiques will also pose a different problem set. All in all, they just don't build them like they use to.

Roger,

You have your upgraded Accuphase C200 and I have my upgraded ARC LS10 (built in 1996 so not vintage). As good as the performance of my ARC LS10 is and it is, it only supports both RCA and Balanced inputs for 6 components (including 1 for tape input), one tape output- both RCA and Balanced, and RCA and Balanced outputs for 2 stereo (4 monoblock) amps or a stereo amp and 2 subwoofers. It does not offer any of the additional controls that you listed.

Rich

 

[RogerD]

Roger,

You have your upgraded Accuphase C200 and I have my upgraded ARC LS10 (built in 1996 so not vinatage). As good as the performance of my ARC LS10 is and it is, it only supports both RCA and Balanced inputs for 6 components (including 1 for tape input), one tape output- both RCA and Balanced, and RCA and Balanced outputs for 2 stereo (4 monoblock) amps or a stereo amp and 2 subwoofers. It does not offer any of the additional controls that you listed.

Rich

Hi Rich,

The only drawback to my C200 is that it is unbalanced only. I have learned to live with it though. Some day I will find a nice clean later built tube pre just to have a option. I am hoping that my Ampex 350's can fill that need as the Accuphase has a straight through tape circuit which I have found to be a great feature.

 

[DaveyF]

DaveyF, I have as well experienced that case quite often, in my room and others as well. It would be dangerous for me to fall into generalizations here, but seems that almost all new designs in amplification bring additional sonic artifacts that rest foundation in the "musicality" department (just posted at that thread, so I have the term fresh )

One can also add to this observation many "new" designs based in "old" technology, like my Viva Solista....

I think that you are generally speaking correct, Fernando. I also see Mike L's points about TT's and such. However, I do have the impression that in the speaker field and possibly in the cable arena, there have been some fairly significant advances made in the last decade that are far greater than in any other area of the hobby.
I'm not so sure in the amp/preamp area that there are significantly different circuits than a decade ago or maybe even more than that...so therefore, most of the newer tube designs are in some ways simply a variation on the same theme. A friend tells me that this is true in the solid state arena as well, however, I am not so sure of that....perhaps another member could comment on that.

 

[FrantzM]

I think that you are generally speaking correct, Fernando. I also see Mike L's points about TT's and such. However, I do have the impression that in the speaker field and possibly in the cable arena, there have been some fairly significant advances made in the last decade that are far greater than in any other area of the hobby.
I'm not so sure in the amp/preamp area that there are significantly different circuits than a decade ago or maybe even more than that...so therefore, most of the newer tube designs are in some ways simply a variation on the same theme. A friend tells me that this is true in the solid state arena as well, however, I am not so sure of that....perhaps another member could comment on that.

I almost agree with you. My quibble is about cables... One has wonder what's new in the realm of carrying an electrical signal ... I would also add Digital gears where today's DAC sound better IMO. High Rez has become more commonplace, if not yet prevalent.. Music servers are slowly replacing the CD transports... Subwoofers are more accepted than tthey were a few years ago...

 

[tdh888]

But I am sure that if I reassembled a compatible system using top pieces of the same vintage I would get a great system. This is to say that I would not advise anyone to take an old vintage piece and insert it in a system built using recent equipment. The great old designers tuned their equipment for systems with some characteristics that are quite different from what we have today.

Surely we can have exceptions, but if you want vintage, IMHO, you should have all vintage.[/QUOTE]

I agree w/ you microstrip but there are some exceptions. We had the chance to compare the ARC VS115 to the ARC D79A in my friends house ( associated equipment SP11 ,VPI TNT MK 2.5 ,JMW 10.5,Benz Ref , Duntech Regent speakers.) although they both have merits/demerits the D79A sound more dynamic and powerful than the VS115 but if we use a modern preamp like the ref 5 or 3 the results might be different. The exception is from a dealer of mine whose system consisted of the following VPI HRX ,JMW 12.6, Koetsu Onyx, ARC Ref phono, ARC REF 5 ,Avalon Ascent speakers. His currently using an ARC M300 MK2 triode ( similar to the ARC Classic 150 but different negative feedback design) He has compared this amp to both the ARC VTM200 and the REF 110 and the M300 triode was able to slay both of this modern amps in his setup. He is now awaiting the arrival of his ARC REF 250 and he hopes that it will sound better than his M300 Triode MK2.

 

[DaveyF]

I almost agree with you. My quibble is about cables... One has wonder what's new in the realm of carrying an electrical signal ... I would also add Digital gears where today's DAC sound better IMO. High Rez has become more commonplace, if not yet prevalent.. Music servers are slowly replacing the CD transports... Subwoofers are more accepted than tthey were a few years ago...

Frantz, I think cables have come a long way in the last decade and more. That is of course if you believe that cables make a difference at all
I'm fairly certain that if you were to go back to zip cord, or even the original Monster Cable for example, and then listened to today's entry level Nordost or Audioquest cabling, that you would hear and see a significant difference The technology has, IMO, changed fairly considerably in the years since the original Monster cable was introduced.

 

[mep]

Really Davey? What *new* technology is in a speaker cable or interconnect that has no magic box attached? Engineers have been able to design cables to perform whatever they needed them to do for many, many years. From audio to low band, mid band, and high band RF. Highly, highly specialized cables with super-exotic shielding has been around for a very long time. Military/space applications have some very unique cables. What we need an audio cable to do is a big yawn in the grand scheme of really exotic electrical engineering requirements. For interconnects, all we need are cables that are well shielded (and you would be suprised at the number of audio cables that contain no shielding) and have good quality connecters that are terminated by someone who has good soldering skills. For speaker cables, having adequate gauge conductors for the power output of the amplifier is the main requirement. Everything after that is pretty much window dressing and snake oil. If you have two speaker cables of the same gauge and both are properly terminated with good quality spades or banana connectors and you can hear a big difference between the two, one of them is intentionally flawed by design. And by that I mean that one of the 3 parameters has been mucked with in order to change the sound to make something stand out at the expense of something else.

 

[FrantzM]

Frantz, I think cables have come a long way in the last decade and more. That is of course if you believe that cables make a difference at all
I'm fairly certain that if you were to go back to zip cord, or even the original Monster Cable for example, and then listened to today's entry level Nordost or Audioquest cabling, that you would hear and see a significant difference The technology has, IMO, changed fairly considerably in the years since the original Monster cable was introduced.

DaveyF

Not too sure .. What has evolved in cables is the ability of the manufacturers to sell them and the gullibility of audiophiles. We are at ease spending $30K for a cable ! If you really believe cables have evolved try to subject yourself to a "knowledge-removed" experience with cables ... Compare with the help of a few freinds, Your favorite Nordost or Audioquest to a heavy gauge zinp cord ... Jump Starter cables for car would be a good candidate. See if you can tell the difference; after all with our eyes wide open, differences are "night and day", the Nordost would "blow out" the other thing and the stage would beame wider .. See if you can tell which is which reliably... and report to us .. Could be illuminating
Back to the thread ...

 

[microstrip]

If you really believe cables have evolved try to subject yourself to a "knowledge-removed" experience with cables ... Compare with the help of a few freinds, Your favorite Nordost or Audioquest to a heavy gauge zinp cord ... Jump Starter cables for car would be a good candidate. See if you can tell the difference; after all with our eyes wide open, differences are "night and day", the Nordost would "blow out" the other thing and the stage would beame wider .. See if you can tell which is which reliably... and report to us .. Could be illuminating
Back to the thread ...

You can not do the experiment is such an easy way - just dropping a very expensive cable in a system and comparing it with zip cord. Expensive cables are not magical devices - unless they have a synergistic match with your system they are not worth anything. You can have a better result with a cheap cable in a system than with an expensive one that does not match the system.

I have done some comparative listening in the past with Nordost Valhalla's versus Shunyata Andromeda and Orion cables. The cables sound very different, the preference for any of them depends a lot on the amplification and source we are using. I have not submitted friends to blind tests, but sometimes I ask them for opinions on sound differences. Curiously even people who can not distinguish a tube from a transistor find the same type of basic sound in each set of cables.

If you want to do your test in a fair condition you have to optimize a system with one type of cable that maximizes the system performance and than replace it with zip cord.

There is one point you are right - if the expensive cable sounds poor in a system it can be difficult to prefer it to zip cord. I have seen systems that became bright and edgy using Valhalla speaker cable , but I think no one will doubt that it sounds good in Steve William's system.

 

[FrantzM]

'strip

Don't drop the expensive drop in the zip cord with knowledge removed. If cables are so important to the system it should be pretty easy to identify those that are not working. In such a test the stupid heavy gauge ultra cheap cable should be at a disadvantage wouldn't you think? No heavy statistics required.. A few friends .. remove the knowledge of what cable is in there and take notes... Zip cord should shine in all its un-glory, easily and reliably identifiable i-e sounding bad...mhh? .

The comparisons you have conducted were of course with the full knowledge of which cable was in the system I suppose...? Not to push the thread in the direction of cables.. I maintain that nothing has been learned or advanced in cables. except to make them prettier. Manufacturers know how to market them and audiophiles fill in the blanks with various biases , predispositions and expectations.
Speakers are where the action has been ... DACs too... Some would claim TT but seing the return of old TTs as the new big deal.. we have to wonder ...
Just an observation here. From most audiophiles SS from the 80's weren't good at all .. right ? I actually share that point of view.. Now has anyone heard the Studer 820 with their stock electronics? Sounds extremely good from all accounts .. the electronics are circa 1985 ...25 years ago when SS weren't supposed to be good ...

 

[DaveyF]

Frantz and Mark, since it would appear from your remarks that you do NOT believe speaker cables or ic's make any difference in the sound of your system, I would suggest maybe going to your local high-end store and asking them to do an AB with the cable that you believe is your standard ( from the sounds of it that would be zip cord). A few years back , I was present at this type of demo, the dealer never told us what was inserted into the system, so it was a 'blind' test.
Without fail, the group could tell when the "better" cables were inserted and in most instances were able to tell which part of the audio spectrum was improved.
In my system, I was previously using the Highwire cables....these are very well insulated and even feature built in RFI suppression, compared to the Nordost that I am now using, these cables lose a little definition and are seemingly
much 'slower' with a loss of air and image precision. I suppose YMMV vs. zip cord

 

[microstrip]

(...) Just an observation here. From most audiophiles SS from the 80's weren't good at all .. right ? I actually share that point of view.. Now has anyone heard the Studer 820 with their stock electronics? Sounds extremely good from all accounts .. the electronics are circa 1985 ...25 years ago when SS weren't supposed to be good ...

I do not own an A820, but I own an A80 with standard electronics and a Bottlehead Eros ( I hope the moderators are sleeping ...) head amplifier. IMHO the Bottlehead sounds better. And it sounds even better if it is again connected through my ARC preamplifier.

 

[FrantzM]

My point was that the A820 with the stock electronics, from all accounts, sounds very good ... Mods, adjuncts or tweaks might make it sounds better. With stock electronics it does seem to sound very good? No?
All that to make the point that some of the old stuff were better than we thought. Our limitations could have been speakers for one or rooms. We have come a long way in understanding what a room can do to a system... To this day some seem to think that the effect of a room are smaller in magnitude than those of a cable ... even some reviewers.
I may have posted it already but I would like to hear a Krell KRS200 in the context of a modern system driving one of today's speakers. In a chain with today's best ancillary equipment , great preamp, DACs or TT or R2R available today ... I feel generous and you can drop whatever cable you feel is the latest or greatest for the system ... I'll even allow the use of the word "synergy"