Colin Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 What makes some vintage solid-state receivers sound so good compared to the newer (supposedly more powerful) solid-state receivers with big ole horns? Is it the heavier chassis, parts? Simpler wiring, less features, bigger transformers, lower THD, especially at lower watts, what? Which measurement show this difference? Slew rate? How can the engineers design better sounding equipment if there is no commonly accepted measurement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwatkins Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 I am not sure I agree completely with your implication that the older SS were better. I have said before (and gotten chastised for doing so - kinda makes you wonder how many times I'll touch the stove) that a real dollar (that is to say the price when new) to real dollar comparison of vintage, 2 channel SS amplification to current 2 channel SS stuff that there is little difference (I may go so far as to say the current solutions sound better to me). There will be dogs in any comparison, but as a whole, at the same 'dollar' level, there will not be a difference worthy of calling the vintage stuff better. Much of the current 2 channel stuff seems to have done a better job on the input side of things as well. This is all IMHO. Having said that I think that good vintage SS is the cat's meow of price/performance. With realitively limited performance differences a good vintage SS will perform remarkably for a thousand (or more) dollars less than current solutions. You just can't beat that deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Name some names, dude. Otherwise, it is a generalization. If a generalization, I would have to say that virtually ALL older or "vintage" or first generation SS amps basically suck when compared in general to most tube gear available at the time, and they certainly suck when compared to the current SS amps (again depending on the BRAND(s) which we have not named). So I will name some names: Did my old 1977 Marantz integrated compare to my "modern" McIntosh MC300? NEGATIVE. Did my Phase Linear 400 compare with my MC300? NEGATIVE. Did my 1980 Crown IC150 compare with the MC300? NEGATIVE. Did Mintosh make equivelent quality gear in 1970 that compares with the "modern" gear? Probably, but have no experience with that. That is the extent of what I have experience with... DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 27, 2004 Author Share Posted January 27, 2004 Well, naming names, I would say my 70s vintage Nikko ST-5010 and solid-state harmon/kardon 330B receivers for 125 and $5 sound sweeter and quicker on big ole horns - without better bass control - than Sony, Yamaha and Onkyo receivers I have heard worth as much as $500. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 My 1976 Kenwood KR-9600 (160 wpc) sounds better in 2-channel than any newer SS HT receiver I have ever heard. I've heard quite a few up in the $2k to $3k range. It certainly sounds way better than my Sony DA5ES. It cannot touch the newer models while watching movies in the 6.1 mode however. I don't know why though and that was the original question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Modern SS receivers recommendations based on a buddy of mine selling this stuff: Modern Yamaha gear undisputably has the best build quality and best sound for all of the Japanese/Asian consumer-level electronics audio SS gear. I tend to agree with his assessment in that: 1) Pioneer is probably the worst for the money in quality and performance (I've owned a Pioneer - ONLY ONCE and NEVER AGAIN!) 2) Sony audio products are quite mediocre at best, however video products are excellent 3) Panasonic audio receivers fry when overdriven ; demonstrating a subwoofer on the showroom floor it smoked right out of the box ; not a good sign of effective quality control - so buyers beware! 4) Denon is slightly better at audio than Sony (that's my opinion) but again quite mediocre ; my 6 channel is a Denon. Still going with no problems after 6 years. I MIGHT buy another if I couldn't find an equivelant Yamaha product for the same money. So if you want the best of the Japanese/Asian crowd of SS receivers, ect, go for a Yamaha. Doesn't cost any more, either... go figure! Also he says that the Yamaha gear doesn't come back for warranty repair. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krustyoldsarge Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Guess I'm such an old Marantz fan because of the bang-for-buck-aspect. Can't afford a new McIntosh and pay alimony, too!... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwatkins Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ---------------- On 1/27/2004 3:43:54 PM garymd wrote: My 1976 Kenwood KR-9600 (160 wpc) sounds better in 2-channel than any newer SS HT receiver I have ever heard. I've heard quite a few up in the $2k to $3k range. It certainly sounds way better than my Sony DA5ES. It cannot touch the newer models while watching movies in the 6.1 mode however. I don't know why though and that was the original question. ---------------- Yeah - that bugs me too Gary - I don't get the sound for two channel I want out of a multichannel unit until I get to the $7K plus (which I am not yet willing to pay). Granted I haven't shopped hard, but my ear sure tells me something is going on here. The interesting part is that to see the same effect on your wallet as in 1971, the $700 - $1000 SS unit would be in the $3,500 - $6,500 (depending on whose 'voo-doo' economics is applied). In that range there are some mighty fine 2 channel SS. I would go far as to say, using that logic, that the NADC372 is a darn great deal. Of the ones I have heard (unfortunately some may exceed my price range) - Marantz SR4320, Krell (no model number remembered here) and the Conrad-Johnson high current stuff (couple with a stat or planar) were all outstanding sounds and well worth my tag of audiophile (IMHO and darnit - probably a generalization - shameful). I would like to audition some McCormack stuff - I hear good things. But, Like colin noted and I think you are saying - the $125 HK740 is the best price performance beast I have. Darn nice sounding unit. New? I believe it was in the $750 range - a beast for a big price in its day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 28, 2004 Author Share Posted January 28, 2004 Of all of the modern receivers to mate with big ole horns, Yamaha is often said to be the worst match! In real dollars, a $100 receiver in 1970 should cost $471 today. A $3500 receiver today should have been $741 in 1970 dollars. A modern $500 receiver should cost about $105 back in 1970. A $3K receiver today was worth $932 back in 1976. A $700 receiver back in 1970 is the same as a $3300 one today in dollars maybe quality too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ---------------- On 1/28/2004 9:33:14 AM Colin wrote: Of all of the modern receivers to mate with big ole horns, Yamaha is often said to be the worst match! In real dollars, a $100 receiver in 1970 should cost $471 today. A $3500 receiver today should have been $741 in 1970 dollars. A modern $500 receiver should cost about $105 back in 1970. A $3K receiver today was worth $932 back in 1976. A $700 receiver back in 1970 is the same as a $3300 one today in dollars – maybe quality too! ---------------- This doesn't apply to electronics IMO. The cost of TVs, computers, cameras, etc. have come down so much that it should be cheaper to buy a quality unit in today's money. Look at VCRs, DVD Players and so on and so forth. Is my logic incorrect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tillmbil Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 My two channel M80 Yamaha is way better than my RXV992. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Hardy Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I don't think one that should discount (no pun intended) the 'real cost' argument. Yes, consumer electronics seem to defy inflation, but this is an artifact (IMO) of a radically different approach to implementation of electronic circuits today vs., say, 1975 vs., say 1955. IF you built an amp today the way, e.g., a McIntosh MC-30 was built, it'd cost a lot! Conversely, if you built my Yamaha CA-610II ss amp (with mostly discrete circuitry and a reasonably hefty power supply) today, I'd guess it'd sell for ca. $2k (instead of the $270 it cost new in 1978). As to the sound of new vs. old ss equipment... this needs (IMO) to be broken into three parts. The earliest ss audio stuff using many germanuim transistors was "ported over" from tube design philosophy and was unreliable and sounded (in most cases) really nasty. I would include in the 'really nasty' category even vaunted early ss designs like my output-autoformer equipped McIntosh MC-2100. Over time, designers learned to work with transistors and topologies evolved (e.g., complementary and differential devices) that sounded good. The above-mentioned CA-610II sounds good. Warm, smooth, and sweet. My Technics SA-300 from about the same vintage is grainy, harsh, and one-dimensional by comparison. The most salient difference in the two, IMO, is the beefiness of the power supply. The third ss generation would include todays hardware, with virtually all components as IC's rather than discrete, and high-efficiency power supplies of very different design philosophy than the P/S of my old Yamaha. I'd attribute the 'wimpiness' assigned to much modern (massmarket) ss hardware to these "improvements", which have clearly enhanced the cost-effectiveness of electronics, but not the absolute quality. How much of this perceived difference is a placebo effect is hard to judge. :-) Finally, as to D-Man's comments re: modern, massmarket ss receivers... how about Onkyo? If nothing else, the stuff looks pretty stoutly engineered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmk Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I was in a store that sells used items, including audio and video gear, a couple of years ago. I was looking at home stereo equipment and the young lady on the floor made the comment "the silver stuff is built and sounds much better that the black stuff". Who can argue with logic like that? Doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Hardy Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 yeah... that's the ticket... that's exactly what I meant! :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 The H/K 430, 630, 730, and 930 that I am fond of all were built with seperate, identical higher quality discrete components. You could tell back in the day by the product line pricing what market the amps were being built for by how they were designed, priced, and marketed. Like today's manufacturers, good reps were gained by quality products for a good price point - hence H/K and Klipsch were some of the best relative bargains. I smile when I look at Ebay and see a 40 watt H/K selling for half the price of a Yamaha 225 wpc receiver. The same people that sold the outdated equipment twenty years ago that are still into audio are buying back their original equipment for a second system. Fit and finish, reliability, and good sounds are the dominant traits of good vintage equipment. Some other examples would include the mid-late seventies Sansui and Rotel top of the line, Yamaha tuners, Apt Holman, Crown Power Line and Straight Line one, Nakamichi tape decks, Revox reel to reels, Sennheiser mics, etc. Harman Kardon and Marantz made their names from putting out ground-breaking tube amps, and the market penetration from these lines gave them a leg up with some excellant receivers in SS. Good engineers like working for good comapnies. JBL had a top notch integrated amp - was it the PM660? They were flush with cash from all the marketing success they had with the Paragon and the Hartsfield. Altec made some horrendous speakers to go with their very good VOT run. All experienced significant declines when they moved away from quality and chased profits, almost to the exclusion of the first element. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ---------------- On 1/27/2004 3:43:54 PM garymd wrote: My 1976 Kenwood KR-9600 (160 wpc) sounds better in 2-channel than any newer SS HT receiver I have ever heard. I've heard quite a few up in the $2k to $3k range. It certainly sounds way better than my Sony DA5ES. It cannot touch the newer models while watching movies in the 6.1 mode however. I don't know why though and that was the original question. ---------------- Gary, ya gotta hear my 507 B&K, blows away the early HK on 2-channel and I'm still determining what I like better compared to the scott 233/272 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ---------------- On 1/27/2004 1:41:49 PM Colin wrote: What makes some vintage solid-state receivers sound so good compared to the newer (supposedly more powerful) solid-state receivers with big ole horns? Is it the heavier chassis, parts? ---------------- I don't know, but I can sure tell you that my very new and very modern B&K amp sound mighty fine with my RF-7s. However, I may have to go flea market/thrift shop/yard sale surfing and see if I can find a decent second-hand two-channel amp. I plan to use it at my friends wedding this spring to hook up a pair of RF-5s to be used as a DJ/music setup during the reception. The source is going to be a laptop PC loaded with MP3's. If not, then I'll have to press my trustly ol' Yamaha R-V702 into service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougdrake Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Steve - Sounds like you need to pick up one of the heralded HK 430's off Flea Bay for a pittance! DD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Steve, those MP3s are choking the good sounds out of your Klipsch! There is no way to convince me a 20 MB file is compressed down to a couple hundred K and the reconfigured to a tenth of the original will sound as good. I haven't read yp on the newest MP3 tech tricks, but ifit is the same old compression algorythms, I can't stand the sound Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ---------------- On 1/28/2004 7:55:31 PM sheltie dave wrote: Steve, those MP3s are choking the good sounds out of your Klipsch! There is no way to convince me a 20 MB file is compressed down to a couple hundred K and the reconfigured to a tenth of the original will sound as good. I haven't read yp on the newest MP3 tech tricks, but ifit is the same old compression algorythms, I can't stand the sound ---------------- I agree with you, but come on - this is going to be for a wedding reception, for pete's sake! The hall is probably going to have crappy acoustics already, plus for the kind of typical crap that is played at wedding receptions (can we say "YMCA" by The Village People, or "The Electric Slide", or, "Celebration", by Kool and the Gang?), I could care less about the quality of the recording (they are all at least 128kbps). As long as it is loud and clear, I'll be happy. Not my choice of tracks - the bride's choice. I am just there to provide the sound system and press the damn "play" button (as well as being the "Best Man" in the wedding). At this point, I am looking for shear SPL (I figure a good 100+ dbs to get the volume to fill the hall), so I figure a used 2-channel amp that has the wattage to drive the RF-5s I plan on using, to the needed SPL's, without clipping/distortion, would be plenty good. Now as to if vintage is better than solid state, I guess it depends on what you are comparing it too. With a few exceptions, I highly doubt most of that older stuff will sound as good as my new B&K amp, at least to me, but at the same time, there was some fine equipment made back then that is still just as good as the modern stuff. Much like cars - I'm certain that there are some models that are just as good as, if not better, then the vehicles currently made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.