Why do people that own vintage gear think It's better than new gear

[Al M.]

Al, do you sit close to nearfield for less stress on both your speakers and amps at a certain volume level, or to lesson the effect of the room on the overall sound, or a little of both?

A little of both, but mainly I sit close because I find the more direct sound exciting. For the same reason I prefer to sit upfront in a concert hall, whenever possible.

I always thought your room was quite large and well behaved, especially with the new treatments and furniture arrangements.

Yes, the size of the room allows for great spatial depth of soundstage because I can move the speakers far away from the front wall. The distance of the speaker drivers to the front wall is about 7 feet. I tried out what happens when I move the speakers closer to the front wall: not just do I lose spatial depth but also the room seems less energized, also less than what you have in your room. I think both our rooms with our current, very different, configurations are energized by sound in an excellent manner.

The relatively large size of the room (it's still just midsized, 24 x 12 x 8.5 feet, with the small window bay locally extending width to 13.5 feet) also helps with low bass. I have few problems with nodes, and especially now that I have new driver tubes which provide really tight bass I notice just how excellent bass is all around. Of course, with the Chesky test CDs you will still hear some resonances , but under regular circumstances there is little to complain. Yet when I move the listening chair further back I get into a room node. One more reason for me to sit where I sit.

I don't think of your system as sounding stressed at higher volume levels.

I don't either but it might be if I tried to achieve the same sound pressure levels seated further back. Jack D. has stressed how disproportionate demands on both amps and speakers become once you really try to fill an entire larger room, and I think he is right.

Also, have you tried adjusting your toe in as you moved back those few feet behind your usual seating position?

Not yet. We can play with it next time you listen.

 

[Al M.]

How far do you seat from the speakers?

About 10 feet from each ear to each speaker. Yet it feels more nearfiled since the speakers are quite far apart (10 feet between middle of main drivers) which also brings the distance from ear to mid-point between speakers closer (about 9 feet).

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

My stab at this:

I do not think much progress has been made in Electronics. IMO the moves have been sideways (in Electronics) New sound, different sound, mopre to today's (aging) audiophile crowd, return to a nostalgic sound, etc... Not much,if anything in term of new circuits or topologies. In some instances components may have gotten better but seeing the craze toward NOS Tubes , one has to wonder. Capacitors do not last that long a paper and oil may not last 50 years but one , again has to wonder if today's Mundorr, Duelund , et al are superior to the Oil in paper and other capacitors of an era gone by. Same with special formulation for inductors and transformers. I can seriously see why someone would not ditch their "old" stuff just to run for the new ones ...

On the speaker side I do believe that there has been progress. COmputer have helped immensely designing new motors, geometry and new material are offering better performance in some areas. We seem to know more now in speakers than previously.
When it comes to front end , it is again difficult to see the progress in pure analogue when you see the return in force of idle drives TT. Cartridges continue to be different and some of us will come that better until the next one made of more precious material comes along then .. that one will be , of course "better". Progress? hardly.
Digital is progressing IMHO by leaps and bounds. in many cases

I haven't touched cables. Old School didn't "dig" cables... Sufficient gauge was good enough. Perhaps they had it right...

With that in mind one can truly understand why some believe, perhaps with good reasons, that their "vintage" gears are better than today's stuff. I keep on repeating it but some brands do not change anything for decades.. The two best examples I know are : Burmester and FM Acoustics. The flagship Burmester preamp and amp are respectively 36 years old!!! and the amp 26 !! I do not know FM Acoustics lineup very well but their 611 has been around forever or so it seems to me. Dar Tzeel keeps its things for 10 years or more, So does Lamm.. There could be some other examples. When you look at things from a marketing angle. these aforementioned brands are not getting renewed sales from old customers. They have to rely on new customers being convinced. Since the market base is not growing (We are getting older and there is not much new blood flowing in our hobby) the path to survival for the High End Industry is to keep telling people that the new, shinier and, of course, more expensive stuff is better. it has been working for quite some times now ..

 

[Ron Resnick]

About 10 feet from each ear to each speaker. Yet it feels more nearfiled since the speakers are quite far apart (10 feet between middle of main drivers) which also brings the distance from ear to mid-point between speakers closer (about 9 feet).

How is 9 feet to midpoint nearfield?

 

[DaveC]

Hi


I haven't touched cables. Old School didn't "dig" cables... Sufficient gauge was good enough. Perhaps they had it right...

Not true, Western Electric went through great lengths to make certain kinds of wire and intended the wire to be used for specific purposes. Some companies like Duelund continue to make wire that is similar to vintage wire and it's not cheap. There are still people today who think the WE wire is among the best made. So pioneering companies like WE certainly recognized the importance of "mere wire". And I'm guessing people used that special WE wire and made some nice cables out of it. I have... Those who do not recognize the importance of cables and insist that people are just fooling themselves, are simply dealing with poor hearing. I know it's not PC these days to say so but it's true. When I was a kid I sold electronics and speakers at a big box store and some people can't hear differences between SPEAKERS. So I mean, to them, all speakers sound the same. All amps sound the same, etc...

But hey, keep grinding that ax!

 

[andromedaaudio]

Quote : Those who do not recognize the importance of cables and insist that people are just fooling themselves, are simply dealing with poor hearing

thanks dave

 

[microstrip]

About 10 feet from each ear to each speaker. Yet it feels more nearfiled since the speakers are quite far apart (10 feet between middle of main drivers) which also brings the distance from ear to mid-point between speakers closer (about 9 feet).

Well I would not consider it as near-field, unless the room is completely absorptive. F. Toole considers that "the near field of a small two-way loudspeaker (...) extends to somewhere in the range 21 in. to almost 6 ft (0.53 to 1.8 m)."

IMHO you are listening at "middle field" distance.

 

[microstrip]

Two details to clarify - IMHO vintage in audio does not mean 10 years, IMHO (and surely not universal view) vintage means components made between 60's and late 80's.

And sorry to say, the improvements in electronics have been very large, particularly considering the introduction of high sound quality digital. Most electronic equipment that sounded great with analog does not sound very good with today's best digital. From time to time I am taken by nostalgia and get some old equipment at a a price I can not resist, but never managed to assemble a system competing with current SOTA.

It is curious that FrantzM referred to several high price items as keeping quality standards along the years - should we consider that the high priced items are really something special? BTW, in these cases the high quality is due to maniac selection of components, integrity of mechanical design and deliberate violation of design rules considering classical parameters - unfortunately all non "scientific" aspects. And yes, there are reasons why the upgrades managed to keep the high standard - but they are not inexpensive at all.

IMHO however the positive drift is not high enough to oblige us to change systems three or four years.

But as new and better speakers show, electronic designers must follow.

 

[kaeksen]

I think everything is vintage as long as it isnt produced anymore..

 

[andromedaaudio]

mark levinson 32 by andromeda61, on Flickr


mark levinson 33 by andromeda61, on Flick

They still go for large money , why ???
My next hifi purchase probably a 32, the chase for reality ,.... what about sounds great , good enough for me

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I owned the Mark Levinson No.32 preamp and the No.33 mono blocks in the late 90's.

in terms of industrial design and audio art both are possibly still unsurpassed.....particularly the No.33's. I still miss the look and awesomeness. and built like a tank.

however; the No.32 was just ordinary sounding......once I removed it from my signal path things got much better. the No.33 mono's were better sounding although in many ways I preferred my No.33h's. this late 90's ML gear was not particularly low noise or nuanced. it was fairly smooth and listenable......just not a clear window to the music.

and I agree with Micro.......the best of current electronics is quite a bit better than vintage. whether one likes it or not.

YMMV, just my 2 cents, and all that stuff.....we all buy and like gear for our own reasons and through our own prism.

 

[andromedaaudio]

May be it was only good in my early hifi days , and it will dissapoint now , could be .
It has a character , sort of royal silky smooth character ,and extraordinary bass controll though , to me if i enjoy the sound its all good.
Never heard the dart pre yet , quite curious , i wanna own solid state besides my tubes which i dont want to let go.
What also matters a lot in comparing older gear is bringing parts up to date , as many parts dont stand the test of time , and a honest comparison is off the table
I recently had my CAT pre checked electronically , incl tubes ,and i had all the micro switches renewed , its a pre of 2007 but it leaves me with no more iffs .

 

[bonzo75]

Two details to clarify - IMHO vintage in audio does not mean 10 years, IMHO (and surely not universal view) vintage means components made between 60's and late 80's.

And sorry to say, the improvements in electronics have been very large, particularly considering the introduction of high sound quality digital. Most electronic equipment that sounded great with analog does not sound very good with today's best digital. From time to time I am taken by nostalgia and get some old equipment at a a price I can not resist, but never managed to assemble a system competing with current SOTA.

It is curious that FrantzM referred to several high price items as keeping quality standards along the years - should we consider that the high priced items are really something special? BTW, in these cases the high quality is due to maniac selection of components, integrity of mechanical design and deliberate violation of design rules considering classical parameters - unfortunately all non "scientific" aspects. And yes, there are reasons why the upgrades managed to keep the high standard - but they are not inexpensive at all.

IMHO however the positive drift is not high enough to oblige us to change systems three or four years.

But as new and better speakers show, electronic designers must follow.

Yeah but that's the thing. Advances were in digital because there is incentive there. What's the incentive in improving analog and better speakers?

Who are the people designing stuff? Many are employees separated from their long term vintage employers (Goldmund) for example, who start designing with a small team to cater to a small number of people on these forums. How are they going to compete with R&D put in by bell labs and the U.S.govt in designing drivers for a much greater good and scientific breakthrough? And how is a small team to compete with decades of improvements made to vintage stuff by open sourcing among many hobbyists where the collective learning and progress of the vintage stuff will be far superior to what some designer with a small team can do. Restored apogees (not that vintage) are a case in point.

 

[Al M.]

How is 9 feet to midpoint nearfield?

Well I would not consider it as near-field, unless the room is completely absorptive. F. Toole considers that "the near field of a small two-way loudspeaker (...) extends to somewhere in the range 21 in. to almost 6 ft (0.53 to 1.8 m)."

IMHO you are listening at "middle field" distance.

Point taken, gents.

 

[ddk]

I owned the Mark Levinson No.32 preamp and the No.33 mono blocks in the late 90's.

in terms of industrial design and audio art both are possibly still unsurpassed.....particularly the No.33's. I still miss the look and awesomeness. and built like a tank.

however; the No.32 was just ordinary sounding......once I removed it from my signal path things got much better. the No.33 mono's were better sounding although in many ways I preferred my No.33h's. this late 90's ML gear was not particularly low noise or nuanced. it was fairly smooth and listenable......just not a clear window to the music.

and I agree with Micro.......the best of current electronics is quite a bit better than vintage. whether one likes it or not.

YMMV, just my 2 cents, and all that stuff.....we all buy and like gear for our own reasons and through our own prism.

My experience was the same as yours Mike, sonically the 32 was a disappointment and while the 33's were pleasant and champs of raw power finesse wasn't its strong suit but you should have heard them on Apogees, they brought them to life like you wouldn't believe. Still love their industrial design, made great eye candy with my 30.5 & 31.5!

david

 

[YashN]

Yup, it's really nice having a ~104 dB sensitive mid/high section with minimal crossover... just a single cap on the mid and tweeter. My 7W EL34 SET works great with it and a 550W D-amp drives the 15" Acoustic Elegance woofers, which are 94 dB sensitive.

Looks like a great system to me!

 

[YashN]

Oh, I see. I thought you were talking about cross-over benefits for the speakers, but you meant benefits for the amps. Yes, that makes sense.

I think both benefit actually - from the system point-of-view. End results: better sound.

 

[ddk]

As a distributor/importer/dealer I had/have enough high and ultra high end equipment pass through my hands to have an accurate picture of what was and what is. For myself pivot to vintage audio equipment was solely based on sound quality and sound quality alone, neither nostalgia nor cost although a benefit had a bearing on my decision. Of course somethings have aged better than others but those that have stood the test of time have no peers sonically in todays high end." IMO" for those who need it in every post!

david

 

[bonzo75]

The thing is some of the older stuff has more R&D and work done on it in both time and money and hobbyists and c professionals both adding to it as compared to modern stuff that sells at 10 times the price based on greed and marketing. In fact upgrades to older components will likely have higher quality modern components than modern off the shelf commercialized products selling at ten times the price.

There is also the survivor ship bias. What has survived is the filtered out superior stuff. Many of the modern stuff may not survive tomorrow. It is probably comparable to the older stuff we are not seeing

 

[still-one]

The absurdity that "high end audio" is the only technology that has failed to improve over that past 40-50 years is burying ones head in the sand. In this case I am not even adding IMHO.