why do old amps sound is liked by many serious audiophiles even though...

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
diyAudio Member
Joined 2007
So there is one reason they sound better/ Designed to drive higher impedance loads of 8 Ohms or greater perhaps unlike modern amps which are (Perhaps) designed to extract maximum SPL though driving 3 or 4 Ohm loads.
I'm looking at the old Inkel power amp we use for my wifes computer speakers, not all that powerful by todays standards 100Watts/channel but the transformer, power supply and heatsinks are massive, heat-sinks alone weigh 2 kilos each I think and there are two of them.
 
I'm looking at the old Inkel power amp we use for my wifes computer speakers, not all that powerful by todays standards 100Watts/channel but the transformer, power supply and heatsinks are massive, heat-sinks alone weigh 2 kilos each I think and there are two of them.

Amplifiers that are built like you describe provide full dynamic range much closer to their full rated output than today's consumer grade equipment. They would probably rate that a 250 watt/channel amplifier today.

Modern consumer grade equipment typically cannot provide full power output for anything other than a brief transient. The result of this is dynamic compression and sometimes audible, objectionable distortion. It is illuminating to do some tests yourself. Measure the voltage drop in a modern consumer grade reciever (like a Sony) when driving 80% of full rated power with both channels driven into a dummy load. It'll drop like a rock. Now observe voltage drop when playing music loud into speakers. It will vary at least 10% if not more. Now perform the same tests on your vintage dual monoblock amp. The results will be self explanatory.
 
diyAudio Member
Joined 2007
Also I think that the Inkel and probably most others were designed over a reasonable bandwidth, say 15-80kHz and did not try and do DC to infinity and beyond, but I really lack the electronic knowledge there.
I just opened it up to check and no markings on the Transformer I can see to indicate its output but the smoothing caps are 10000uF.
Seeing as how the Inkel brand was considered second or third tier at the time of its manufacture I would think that first tier amps were better but it looks reasonably "simple" inside
 
i have seen many talk about the vintage Marantz 170DC or Pioneer 1980 etc

what is so unique of those amps that someone cant build such stuff these days?

I have even seen ceramic and mylar caps in those which are generally not encouraged in audio ckt.

but why does they sound that great that one eventually calling me many times that do you have any old amp like them....

we can get better toroidal these days better caps but whats wrong...

i sometime see the polystyrene capacitors in the old amps is that one of the strong reasons why they sound good?
ofcourse design is one aspect but example...

people say Rotel was good few decades ago but now its not as good as old...

i understand the cost and features competetions but is there anything apart from that what makes them so unique...

Already in the -70 there was a race going on about this.
But the scenario was a slightly different one.
The Japaneese were rolling in over Norway with cheap, high-powered and goodsounding equipment. Not everyone liked the sound, c'ause it was "cold", "Analytic" and so on.
At the same time came those who really liked this "Japaneese sound".
Strange isn't it?
Today wee concider theese Japaneese amps to be "warm", "musical" and much better than the chip-HiFi there is made for the consumers today.

So what is the reality?
Well, Let me exemplify it by talking about the Norwegian brand TANDBERG.
I own a lot of Radios from TANDBERG from the -60, -70 and some from the -80. All with the soundsignature for each decade.

Some consider the TR200 for the best sounding amp ever from Tandberg.
It was constructed in the late -60. Consists of a really singelended design, and what are called "composite resistors" . Theese resistors have been given the credit for this radios "warm sound"
In the mid -70 TANDBERG launched the TR2075.
A, for the time, Highpowered radio with outstanding facilities.
In 1978 it was some redesigned and launched as the TR2075MKII, and later the TR2080.
Most of the critics have stated that the 2075 was the last "goodsounding" Tandbergreceiver. as the TR2075MKII was all to cold and analytic.

I won't bore the forum with what there was done to accomplish this.
But in fact they have different sound.

So which one is the better?
Here is the core of it all.
Some liked the -60 sound better and find that the amps form those times sounds better than "the crap" made today, while others feels that the TR2080 sounds more modern and more true to the music played by it.

I feel that true HiFi to the masses wasn't produced since the -80.
It has nothing to do with the technologies used, but much more the marketing elements. I think it is mentioned somewhere in this tread, but I was horrified by an ad SONY put out some year ago:
The claimed a surroundsoundsystem with a whopping 1000W power output.
Five channels 200W each.
There was a catch to it all.
The system had a label at the power-inlet: Power consumption: 50WATT.

We are now travelling into the theme: What is Watt.
The Sony system uses the term PMPO, Peak MaximumPowerOutput.
And even worse: Into 2 Ohms.
(The speakers supplied with the system had an impedanse of 6 Ohms)
The TR2075 had a power output of 2X75W FTC

The FTC-norm requires the amp to be driven with ALL (Both) channels over the total audible band (20-20.000Hz) with a distorsion of less than 0,05% or so.
The Sony PMPO is a theoratically obtainable pulse, 1uSecond, into a low impedanse without any distorsion considerations at all.

Anyone who wonders why the oldies sounds better?

Bottom line:
If you like the more "damped" sound of the -60, you find the oldies much better than todays more analytic sounding amps. (Now disregarding the SONY-fadese)
And I guess thats what we really are into here.

Liking the analytic amplifying wire?
Or a more "musically pleasant" -60 type mainly harmonic distorted sound?

Personally, I preffer the TR2080. :D
 
Those old amps are way better than today's rubbish, it's just that people of today think or are brainwashed into believing 5 in 1 is hi fi ,lol.

People believe what they're told in the marketing hype. My neighbor thinks that his Bose surround system (the one with the tiny speakers) is state of the art. He cranks the music up on it (it will play pretty loud) and it sounds terrible. It is missing a whole octave of mid bass and it is so obvious to my old, half deaf ears. The bass is muddy. The dynamics are absolutely dead. It sounds like a loud echo from a couple of rooms away; no coherence to the music at all. But he thinks you can't improve on it.
 
Ha ha ha, that about sums it up perfectly. We're living in a throwaway age where quantity rules not quality.

Indeed. I have *never* heard one of those "acoustimass" systems that sounded even close to acceptable. That system does not even reproduce simple spoken words clearly!

"Balancing" the sound will provide a more pleasing "psychoacoustic" listening experience. My buddy has an old Sony "all in one" "component" system, with a reciever sans power amp, and a modest seperate power amp. The system came with large 12" 3 way floor standing speakers. It is nothing special, but it does reproduce a full range of music and it does play very loud without falling apart. Of course an audiophile would turn their nose up at it, but at least Sony did a good job of matching the components and at least the system doesn't compress the dynamic range or turn the program material into incoherent mud. It sounds a lot better than some "hi fi" systems I have heard that consisted of poorly matched components and/or poorly placed speakers. But just try to tell people that simply moving their speakers will greatly improve their system. They will typically point to the manufacturer's "specs" and completely ignore imaging, room response, etc; and delude themselves into believing that their equipment is performing to spec in spite of placing the speakers right up against the sofa, or placing small speakers on the floor, or whatever. If people would get their noses out of the manufacturer's hyped up literature and actually open their ears they might get their money's worth out of their equipment.
 
I would suggest there is quite a bit of nostalgia associated with older amplifiers.
I have a couple of 1980 Maplin 50 watt amplifier modules. This was my first amplifier project in 1980 and so holds a lot of good memories for me. What was incredible for me was it worked first time ! I also built a Maplin 225WRMS amplifier for a mobile disco and that worked well for many years despite on road use.
Despite the 50 watt amp being old I do like the sound of it. I cant tell the difference between it and a modern class d amplifier.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.