The Golden Age of audio gear

I would disagree. I think the gear today is far better than ever before.

Today's technology is simply way more advanced, and the sound quality benefits from it. :b
... And on everything (sources, preamps, amps, loudspeakers, and wires)!

The production and manufacturing (and all things in between) of records have taken a step backwards through the decades, which is why there is an actual GA of Records. I don't think the same is true for gear, which has seen huge strides up in quality. That's not to say there isn't any decades old gear worthy of the GA status, but those pieces are far and few.

I will say (IMO) that mass-market gear, which encompasses a lot of new AVR's, doesn't stand up to yesteryear gear from the late 70's and early 80's for sound quality. Sure they have many more bells and whistles, but it's been at the expense of quality.

As far as liking and owning gear from the 70's/80's, I see it as no different then the guy driving a 65 Chevy. It may not be nearly as good as a new car, but nostalgia is a huge attraction as we age, and I think there is a wonderful comfort that goes along with that.

My current, testbed, HT all-in-one system which many here are happy to rubbish, is a key example of how standards deteriorate very rapidly. When made in around 2000 it most certainly was mass-market, at a pretty low rung in the ladder; but when I visit an electrical store today the quality of the equivalent has plummeted: cheap, plastic junk seems an appropriate epitaph. In comparison, the Philips has the build quality of a NAD (which I have BTW, to compare).

Yet the price differential between what the current units sell for, versus what the Philips did, would not be that great ...

Frank

jazdoc said:

I would disagree. I think the gear today is far better than ever before.

Click to expand...

+1

With the proviso that much of what is used today eg. say tube circuitry, is a refinement of circuits developed fifty or more years ago

I'm a huge believer in new technology.

I think the vintage thing is driven by nostalgia. When one says "Golden Age" it implies that everything was good. What we actually have are a handful of classics that were great then and are still very good by the standards of today, survivors of natural selection. The rest have been recycled or are in landfills with the rest of the dreck of succeeding decades.

I have a mixed feelings on the subject. Not to pick on you, John, but I'll use your excellent summary as a sounding board if you don't mind....

The production and manufacturing (and all things in between) of records have taken a step backwards through the decades, which is why there is an actual GA of Records.

Click to expand...

Yes, but multi-track studio recordings, which I think are an art form of their own, have the potential to be better than they have ever been, and by a good margin. They live up to that potential pretty often, in spite of the volume wars, but rarely in mainstream music categories.

I don't think the same is true for gear, which has seen huge strides up in quality. That's not to say there isn't any decades old gear worthy of the GA status, but those pieces are far and few.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. But while both recording and playback gear has taken some huge steps forward, we've had a couple of decades of an anti-science culture in the audiophile community that has left too much of the high end treading water, or worse. Thankfully the best have ignored this trend and continued to innovate and refine.

I will say (IMO) that mass-market gear, which encompasses a lot of new AVR's, doesn't stand up to yesteryear gear from the late 70's and early 80's for sound quality. Sure they have many more bells and whistles, but it's been at the expense of quality.

Click to expand...

I don't have mixed feelings about this; sure, if you'e talking about "100 watt per channel" surround sound receivers at three, four hundred bucks, they will only meet specs with the easiest of loads (if that) and the build quality is not at all robust. But by the time you get to even $700 or so, in the better brands -- Yamaha, Dennon, Pioneer Elite, Onkyo, Marantz... -- you can easily find very well-built units that will deliver very respectable 7.1, even with fairly difficult speakers, then switch to a two-channel mode that doubles the power to the L/R fronts, by-passes all the processors, and delivers loads of fast, clean power to your music experience. Got $1500 to $2000? You can get seriously competitive with just about anything out there. And, nevermind the HT function for a minute, a couple of grand or less for 300 watts per channel stereo, pre amp, tuner and headphone amp? It shouldn't even get in the ballpark. But it does.

The classic receivers from the 70s? They look great and warm the heart, but they won't sound as good.

MHO. YMMV.

Tim

Hi

I feel obligated to respond ... My thread about the Japanese gear of the 70's in 80's was tome in response to a tendency to equate these components with all that was bad in Audio. It wasn't the case and there are solid profs against such view. I never said that these TTs were consistently superior to all the TTs made today, it remains that some of these TTs would hold their own against several today’s TTs of the highest caliber made today e.g the Technics SP-10 MK II.

Now concerning the electronics, I am not entirely sure. It is almost a reflex to anoint today's gear as "superior". At the same time there is a rise in the notion of preferences. if there is only preference and no objective standards how can something be "superior"? The notion of an objective standard/baseline is routinely rejected in the high Audio Scene,yet , some gears are deemed "superior" to what then? to previous preferences? Do you fail to see the contradiction there? In order to establish precedence there has to be an order, a reference. An objective basis somewhere…
I tend to see the mid 90's as an interesting time, lot activity new gears,new topology a maturing of the sound as well as the specs of SS , a time when tubes became less euphonics and particularly better speakers and much, much better sources, be they digital or analog due IME due to more computational power allowing better and cheaper simulation.
My personal view on the subject is that there have been few progress in circuits designs. Components however have gotten better due, again, to the advance in computing which allowed better manufacturing, tools and tolerances. This did affect to some degree the designs resulting in modest progress in final results be it subjective or objective.
The largest advances are in speakers. They are miles ahead of speakers of yesterday, save for a few examples (The Quad ESl63 being one of these) , speakers today are superior and again this is due to advance in computing power. ANY laptop becomes a powerful tool with the proper software some of them free. Digital is progressing by bounds and leaps… There is a plethora of very good sounding DAC out there some of them modestly priced and some downright cheap (HRT Streamer) … I have found myself owning 3 DACs (M2Tech Young, Benchmark HDR, HRT Streamer) the way I find myself vacillating, I might just get a Korg or Mytek for DSD… TTs are much better because we know better, we can compute better, simulate better and measure better,no doubt, Cartridges are getting better too. Electronics not much IMO. I could live very happily with many of these “old” components but please give me the modern speakers and sources…
So as Jack so wisely say to talk about a “golden Age” is to be nostalgic about a period that never existed… Things have never been as good as today. I will venture something that some would call heretic. Today’s BEST recordings surpass the old. I would frankly say that what 2L, RR, FIM and many others surpass the old. They stand on the shoulder of giants, learned from them and are using much better equipment, technique and control. The results are to me superior. Granted the performance may not be.

Golden Age of Audio? In front of us not behind

I agree with the rest of your post, Frantz and really hope this part is true....

Golden Age of Audio? In front of us not behind

Click to expand...

I think we need a revival of interest in audio to get there, though, and that interest is, sadly, discouraged by the myths and predjudices that are common in high end.

Tim

Frantz,
I will pick your very good text, to point a few aspects where we have different opinions. I know it is the lazy option, but it is much faster for me …

FrantzM said:

(…) Now concerning the electronics, I am not entirely sure. It is almost a reflex to anoint today's gear as "superior". At the same time there is a rise in the notion of preferences. if there is only preference and no objective standards how can something be "superior"? The notion of an objective standard/baseline is routinely rejected in the high Audio Scene,yet , some gears are deemed "superior" to what then? to previous preferences? Do you fail to see the contradiction there? In order to establish precedence there has to be an order, a reference. An objective basis somewhere…

Click to expand...

We should say that what you call “preference” is only a preference because we do not know how to measure it in a standard and unique way. There is no contradiction – when designers and manufacturers will be able to provide us with measurements that truly correlate with sound quality, we can think about objectivity again.

FrantzM said:

I tend to see the mid 90's as an interesting time, lot activity new gears,new topology a maturing of the sound as well as the specs of SS , a time when tubes became less euphonics and particularly better speakers and much, much better sources, be they digital or analog due IME due to more computational power allowing better and cheaper simulation.
My personal view on the subject is that there have been few progress in circuits designs. Components however have gotten better due, again, to the advance in computing which allowed better manufacturing, tools and tolerances. This did affect to some degree the designs resulting in modest progress in final results be it subjective or objective.

Click to expand...

Contrary to what your feelings, I think electronics developed a lot in the last few years – designers could conciliate many aspects that usually it was not possible to have together – detailed without being too analytical, great bass with clear medium frequencies, spacious without being bigger than life.

FrantzM said:

The largest advances are in speakers. They are miles ahead of speakers of yesterday, save for a few examples (The Quad ESl63 being one of these) , speakers today are superior and again this is due to advance in computing power. ANY laptop becomes a powerful tool with the proper software some of them free.

Click to expand...

Although this is true, the main reason for the great advance in speakers was that designers have a better knowledge of psychoacoustics, mechanical engineering, new materials and the science of loudspeaker measurement developed a lot during the last years. More powerful, more consistent and cheaper magnets had a serious part in these developments. And serious designers do not use laptops with sound cards and free software – these amateur tools are not compatible with professional requirements of speaker development.

FrantzM said:

Digital is progressing by bounds and leaps… There is a plethora of very good sounding DAC out there some of them modestly priced and some downright cheap (HRT Streamer) … I have found myself owning 3 DACs (M2Tech Young, Benchmark HDR, HRT Streamer) the way I find myself vacillating, I might just get a Korg or Mytek for DSD… TTs are much better because we know better, we can compute better, simulate better and measure better,no doubt, Cartridges are getting better too. Electronics not much IMO. I could live very happily with many of these “old” components but please give me the modern speakers and sources…

Click to expand...

Yes, astonishing vinyl is sounding better than ever. But, as I said, IMHO, electronics also …

FrantzM said:

So as Jack so wisely say to talk about a “golden Age” is to be nostalgic about a period that never existed… Things have never been as good as today. I will venture something that some would call heretic. Today’s BEST recordings surpass the old. I would frankly say that what 2L, RR, FIM and many others surpass the old. They stand on the shoulder of giants, learned from them and are using much better equipment, technique and control. The results are to me superior. Granted the performance may not be.
Golden Age of Audio? In front of us not behind

Click to expand...

Here we agree!

My idea of "Golden Age" is not what is best. It's sort of nostalgic. tweaky, euphonic, tubey... Where we have progressed is the elimination of distortions and our view of stereo reproduction as a wholistic approach including room treatment.

There is not likely to another ARC, tas, Linn, Magnepan, CJ,etc.

From the eyes of the beholder, or the ears of yesterday's years from emotionally romantic nostalgia ...

Golden Age? It's right now, as it was yesterday, and as it will be tomorrow. :b

And the audio gear that we're using now, is a direct reflection of the state of our soul.
And largely influenced by our emotional and financial situation, now.
And more often than not we get attached to our 'things' from the past.
Tough to get detached from them.
And tough too to embrace the new; and for many few.

After the year 2000 if there was any hope of any golden era it's gone. The golden era started with western electric,bell labs,and Ampex. After that this continued to progress till the 1980's and 1990's. Now everybody builds to a price and specific market. Any real value is imaginary.

FrantzM said:

Hi

I feel obligated to respond ... My thread about the Japanese gear of the 70's in 80's was tome in response to a tendency to equate these components with all that was bad in Audio. It wasn't the case and there are solid profs against such view. I never said that these TTs were consistently superior to all the TTs made today, it remains that some of these TTs would hold their own against several today’s TTs of the highest caliber made today e.g the Technics SP-10 MK II.

Click to expand...

Garrard (301 and 501) and Technics SP10. While I think the older arms and cartridges set the tenor for today's products, I don't think can begin to touch the latest transducers and arms. For one, resonances are much better controlled in both.

Now concerning the electronics, I am not entirely sure. It is almost a reflex to anoint today's gear as "superior". At the same time there is a rise in the notion of preferences. if there is only preference and no objective standards how can something be "superior"? The notion of an objective standard/baseline is routinely rejected in the high Audio Scene,yet , some gears are deemed "superior" to what then? to previous preferences? Do you fail to see the contradiction there? In order to establish precedence there has to be an order, a reference. An objective basis somewhere…
I tend to see the mid 90's as an interesting time, lot activity new gears,new topology a maturing of the sound as well as the specs of SS , a time when tubes became less euphonics and particularly better speakers and much, much better sources, be they digital or analog due IME due to more computational power allowing better and cheaper simulation.
My personal view on the subject is that there have been few progress in circuits designs. Components however have gotten better due, again, to the advance in computing which allowed better manufacturing, tools and tolerances. This did affect to some degree the designs resulting in modest progress in final results be it subjective or objective.
The largest advances are in speakers. They are miles ahead of speakers of yesterday, save for a few examples (The Quad ESl63 being one of these) , speakers today are superior and again this is due to advance in computing power. ANY laptop becomes a powerful tool with the proper software some of them free. Digital is progressing by bounds and leaps… There is a plethora of very good sounding DAC out there some of them modestly priced and some downright cheap (HRT Streamer) … I have found myself owning 3 DACs (M2Tech Young, Benchmark HDR, HRT Streamer) the way I find myself vacillating, I might just get a Korg or Mytek for DSD… TTs are much better because we know better, we can compute better, simulate better and measure better,no doubt, Cartridges are getting better too. Electronics not much IMO. I could live very happily with many of these “old” components but please give me the modern speakers and sources…

Click to expand...

Since I'm a front-end type person, I'd say the biggest advance has been in digital playback. It has certainly gone from the early gens of unlistenable playes to relatively listenable products such as PD, Stahl-Tek, Neodio, Audio Note, etc.

Here is an interesting paradox for those who have objectivist roots. If electronics from the 1970s and 1980s measured as well as electronics from 2012 (and I’m talking preamps and power amps here), how can you reconcile your objectivist mindset and say that 2012 gear could possibly sound better even if it really does?

Moving on…I do think that there are more than a few turntable gems from the 1980s that would hold their own against many new tables. No one who loves belt drive tables even mentioned Micro Seiki turntables in Frantz’s other thread by the way. Just because something is new doesn’t automatically mean it is better than what it replaced unless we are talking about computers and digital audio.

mep said:

Here is an interesting paradox for those who have objectivist roots. If electronics from the 1970s and 1980s measured as well as electronics from 2012 (and I’m talking preamps and power amps here), how can you reconcile your objectivist mindset and say that 2012 gear could possibly sound better even if it really does?

Moving on…I do think that there are more than a few turntable gems from the 1980s that would hold their own against many new tables. No one who loves belt drive tables even mentioned Micro Seiki turntables in Frantz’s other thread by the way. Just because something is new doesn’t automatically mean it is better than what it replaced unless we are talking about computers and digital audio.

Click to expand...

Windows Vista wasn't necessarily a step forward

MylesBAstor said:

Windows Vista wasn't necessarily a step forward

Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's software and not hardware. We can throw Windows ME in that pile too. I think when you mentioned the Garrard 501 above you meant to say the 401.