advertisement


Nostalgia vs R&D

I kind of liken HiFi from the 70's and 80's era to cars from the same period. Some of them are nice to look at, but a complete b*tch to run and completely unreliable.

Choke cable, anyone?
 
Modern speakers often measure just as inaccurately as vintage. As measuring these days is so easy, I assume that this is intentional.
 
I find it archaic and bizarre that in acoustic science, professionally designed studios and concert halls and even amongst some more enlightened audiophiles, that it’s been known for last 50 years that sonics is largely determined by speaker-room interaction, yet audiophile folk (of a certain age) continue to buy monkey coffins with no regard to room correction and compensation or even scoff like flat-Earth/moon-landings-deniers of its critical value.
 
I kind of liken HiFi from the 70's and 80's era to cars from the same period. Some of them are nice to look at, but a complete b*tch to run and completely unreliable.

Well you’d be entirely wrong in doing so! I’m currently listening to a Blue Note LP via a predominantly vintage system. The components as follow:
  • Nagaoka MP-500 (new)
  • SME 3009 Series II (1969-70, I have swapped the armbase for a later type with RCAs for convenience and thoroughly cleaned it, other than that it is perfectly stock, it hasn’t even needed the rear rubber counterweight decoupling replacing, though I have one waiting in its box for when it does)
  • Thorens TD-124/II (1965, it has been thoroughly stripped, cleaned, has a new after market main bearing, a new belt and some other rubber parts, otherwise stock)
  • JC Verdier Control B preamp (about 12 years old, I didn’t know its history so recapped it, though that was likely unnecessary, it is full of lovely NOS Mullards)
  • Quad 303 (an early one, probably 1968-9, it has been fully recapped and tested but retains its original boards, resistors, transistors etc, a surprisingly good sounding amp)
  • Tannoy Monitor Golds (no later than 1971, no work beyond cleaning the tweeter magnet gaps gently realigning the compression drivers, everything else 100% stock)
I’m prepared to bet there is very little on today’s market that will be so serviceable and so reliable. Now I have put a little light restoration work in this classic kit will almost certainly outlive me.

PS I am in no way implying a TD-124 is maintenance free, if I was making that argument I’d pick a Garrard, TD-150 or classic 1970s direct drive ahead of it. I’m just describing what I have.
 
I find it archaic and bizarre that in acoustic science, professionally designed studios and concert halls and even amongst some more enlightened audiophiles, that it’s been known for last 50 years that sonics is largely determined by speaker-room interaction, yet audiophile folk (of a certain age) continue to buy monkey coffins with no regard to room correction and compensation or even scoff like flat-Earth/moon-landings-deniers of its critical value.

Room correction etc is something I would never have in my hi fi under any circumstances.
 
I find it archaic and bizarre that in acoustic science, professionally designed studios and concert halls and even amongst some more enlightened audiophiles, that it’s been known for last 50 years that sonics is largely determined by speaker-room interaction, yet audiophile folk (of a certain age) continue to buy monkey coffins with no regard to room correction and compensation or even scoff like flat-Earth/moon-landings-deniers of its critical value.

In fairness a lot of us understand it very well, choose good sounding rooms, understand how to set up kit without compromise and don’t need a load of digital crap in the signal path to fix bad choices. Look at my room and initially you’ll see a largish system (gorilla coffins, not monkey) in a fairly full living room. Look closer and you see something approaching ‘golden ratio’ dimensions and adherence to old-school recording studio ‘live end/dead end’ acoustics management.
 
Why does there have to be a definitive rule?

There's plenty of beautifully designed and well built vintage gear that can still wipe the floor with modern offerings, but there's also plenty of shoddily built and badly designed vintage gear that sounds worse than a decent modern Bluetooth speaker.

However, there's plenty of beautifully designed and well built modern equipment that shows just how far technology has come in the last 40 years but, equally, there's a fair amount of cheap, shoddy and even borderline dangerous modern stuff out there that cynically cashes in on people's predisposition for something new and shiny.
 
Modern speakers often measure just as inaccurately as vintage. As measuring these days is so easy, I assume that this is intentional.

It's quite possible that what most people are looking for is something that sounds good to them, which might not equate to accuracy.
 
Started off my hifi obsession back in the 1970's with a vinyl system. (Michell, Kef, Technics). Moved on to digital through Cd's and then expanded into home theatre. Then added streaming digital sources, PC and online. I had always thought that I was making improvements to my systems as the technology got better. That was until two years ago when I thought (probably due to a pique of nostalgia) that I would drag out my old deck and vinyl and see how much my current system would blow away the old technology. Boy was I in for a surprise! The vinyl system was more than capable of competing with all of my digital sources and in some cases outperforming them. This got me thinking about how I could put together an 'old' system that would take things to whole new level. I now have a complete vintage system which sounds comfortably better than any of the new tech stuff which I had been listening to. I now have a Thorens TD150 MK2 which has been rebuilt with new Rega arm, Ortofon Bronze Cartridge and new plinth. Naim Nac62 and Nap140 amps and my old Kef speakers. I still use digital streaming which sounds great through my new 'old' gear, but when I want to listen the ultimate that my system can give then it has to be vinyl.
It's not nostalgia which has brought me to this realization but objective listening.
 

No not unless really necessary and then certainly not that one. A room should be designed around the hi fi system with zero regard for aesthetics and if you won't do that then don't get a hi fi is my way of looking at it.
Many a person who asked my help has been left to sort it out on their own because they insisted on the styling of the gear having to be xyz or wouldn't move the furniture etc to best accommodate the hi fi.
 
No not unless really necessary and then certainly not that one. A room should be designed around the hi fi system with zero regard for aesthetics and if you won't do that then don't get a hi fi is my way of looking at it.
Many a person who asked my help has been left to sort it out on their own because they insisted on the styling of the gear having to be xyz or wouldn't move the furniture etc to best accommodate the hi fi.

I don't disagree with your view but the problem is that 9 out of 10 audiophiles don't have a dedicated room.
And some rooms are a lot more disruptive than others.
Should someone not buy a high fidelity system just because the room makes a mess of the response below the transition frequency (bass range)?
 
I don't disagree with your view but the problem is that 9 out of 10 audiophiles don't have a dedicated room.
And some rooms are a lot more disruptive than others.
Should someone not buy a high fidelity system just because the room makes a mess of the response below the transition frequency (bass range)?

I've had people ask my advice on hi fi equipment and then add that all items must be black, all must be the same width, the TT must sit on top of this lot and the only place they are willing to put the speakers is one on top of the TV and the other on the floor....
They get advised to just get a bluetooth player or what have you...
 


advertisement


Back
Top