Why is there a perception (particularly on social media) that antique equipment sounds better than modern audio gear?
I see countless posts from self-proclaimed audiophiles showing a stack of separates that were designed and manufactured in the 70s, like that somehow proves their audiophile credentials. Tubes and vinyl? Really? It's almost 2025!
In my view, even the cheapest Chi-Fi equipment from the current era sounds superior by orders of magnitude to dusty, out-of-date gear from the ancient past.
What is this trend that older is better? The test of time? Visual bias? Vintage chic?
I don't get it 😅
I see countless posts from self-proclaimed audiophiles showing a stack of separates that were designed and manufactured in the 70s, like that somehow proves their audiophile credentials. Tubes and vinyl? Really? It's almost 2025!
In my view, even the cheapest Chi-Fi equipment from the current era sounds superior by orders of magnitude to dusty, out-of-date gear from the ancient past.
What is this trend that older is better? The test of time? Visual bias? Vintage chic?
I don't get it 😅
1970's? I thought this thread was about 1920's equipment... I think most new equipment was transistorized in the 1970's, televisions excepted.
Isn't it just according to personal taste? As long as you're not forced to listen to it, don't concern yourself.
Hey Jeff, nothing's wrong with it. I have a large vinyl collection, although my preference is always to listen to an uncompressed digital file. Surely you are aware that the 'character and warmth' given to vinyl is basically distortion. That's fine, but it's not what the musician intended.
The same goes for tubes I suppose, but I wanted to make the point that I new gear sounds more accurate and authentic to me. Also, the tendency on social media to use visual bias to attract likes.
I'm just trying to understand the trend.
I can agree with that. I don't spend a lot of time obsessing over expensive brand names, or manufacturer's reputations. I know what I like when I hear it. I suppose it goes down to what you think an audiophile is... Someone who knows a lot about gear, our someone who is gifted at using their ears to discern quality.
I spend a lot of time on social media, and it seems most of the audiophile accounts just post pics of expensive vintage gear. Seems odd is all.
My first Hi-Fi was passed down from my grandfather. It was from the 50s. Unbelievable that he never updated it. This was a man who kept a grandfather clock into the 90s 😂
It was made of wood, and had a pretty good sound. But I wouldn't put it up against Chi-Fi DACs and Class D amps.
That beautiful picture of your immediately brings me back to the 1970-ies. The best music (artistically), large closed speaker enclosures (Philips AD12100, AD5060, AD161), vinyl LPs, and wall to wall carpets on the floor which sere dusty but acoustically far superior to the hard and easy to clean plastic and ceramic flooring we have today.
No, those amplifiers ("receivers") with semi-complementary final stages, no short circuit protection, single supplies and 20-30 Watts RMS could not have sound better than modern amplifiers.
Really, I love my wife very much. But the way we kissed in the 1970-ies was more tender and more exiting than our kisses now. The music of Barry White or The Platters, slow dancing in a dark room, soft light and mirror balls sounded much better than on imperfect equipment than any digital recording on a class D amplifier.
Do you see where I am getting at?
PS. I see a lot of designs and building plans in this forum. Anyone be so kind to post a plan for a time machine?
No, those amplifiers ("receivers") with semi-complementary final stages, no short circuit protection, single supplies and 20-30 Watts RMS could not have sound better than modern amplifiers.
Really, I love my wife very much. But the way we kissed in the 1970-ies was more tender and more exiting than our kisses now. The music of Barry White or The Platters, slow dancing in a dark room, soft light and mirror balls sounded much better than on imperfect equipment than any digital recording on a class D amplifier.
Do you see where I am getting at?
PS. I see a lot of designs and building plans in this forum. Anyone be so kind to post a plan for a time machine?
Ah, now tell me good man, WHY?
Yeah, a forum is also a form of social media but I take it that that is not what you mean by it.
This is one of those topics that doesn't really have an answer due to the subjectivity of opinions, but is still fun to discuss (until it turns nasty).
For my part, I have a Fisher tube integrated amp built in 1962, a solid state Marantz integrated built in 1973, a pair of Pass ACA amps that I assembled a couple of years ago, and I've passed on to my grandson a Chi-Fi Class D amp. I have a moderate collection of vinyl and a modest turntable, a decent CD player, and a Bluesound Node streamer. Most of my listening is done using the streamer and the ACAs. Still, as far as enjoyable sound goes, I think the Fisher has a very tiny edge over the ACAs, and the ACA's have a tiny edge over the Marantz. And, when I say tiny, I mean tiny, not orders of magnitude. The Class D amp was also great...lots of detail, but I felt it was just a bit sterile. Totally a subjective opinion, but I did not enjoy listening to it as much as any of the others.
You will notice, everything I have in my system is/was moderately priced. Decent quality, but nothing super high-end. If I had unlimited resources, though, I would buy something modern over vintage. I enjoy the look of vintage equipment because it is nostalgic, but recognize advancements in technology.
For my part, I have a Fisher tube integrated amp built in 1962, a solid state Marantz integrated built in 1973, a pair of Pass ACA amps that I assembled a couple of years ago, and I've passed on to my grandson a Chi-Fi Class D amp. I have a moderate collection of vinyl and a modest turntable, a decent CD player, and a Bluesound Node streamer. Most of my listening is done using the streamer and the ACAs. Still, as far as enjoyable sound goes, I think the Fisher has a very tiny edge over the ACAs, and the ACA's have a tiny edge over the Marantz. And, when I say tiny, I mean tiny, not orders of magnitude. The Class D amp was also great...lots of detail, but I felt it was just a bit sterile. Totally a subjective opinion, but I did not enjoy listening to it as much as any of the others.
You will notice, everything I have in my system is/was moderately priced. Decent quality, but nothing super high-end. If I had unlimited resources, though, I would buy something modern over vintage. I enjoy the look of vintage equipment because it is nostalgic, but recognize advancements in technology.
It could also be a difference in mastering. The digital files have to sound listenable when played over a mobile phone, fortunately mobile phones that play vinyl records have not been invented yet.
Music from the latter half of the 1970s was bass-heavy (disco thump, thump, thump). I have not heard that amount of bass in 1980s or 1990s music.
Ed
Ed
The follies of one's youth etc. The phenomenon is called nostalgia, and seems to override reason.
Regarding nostalgia: there used to be incandescent lamps designed to look like candles, nowadays there are LED lamps designed to look like incandescent lamps.
This has been discussed before. Still got my Marantz 1200 integrated amp and several other museum pieces.
I don't own any gear newer than the 1970s because I like the sound, I can rebuild it and it doesn't cost more than my first house. And, I still have a couple thousand LPs. Because I like the sound.
Same goes for my house and cars, except my wife's 2018 Honda CR-V and a 1986 Mercedes Benz 560SEL. My daily driver is a 1953 Chevy truck with a 1995 LT-1 engine with electronics that should be in a museum, as one member says. All paid for.
That's why I can enjoy being retired, sit at the computer all day drinking coffee, and my biggest expense is property taxes.
Voters just approved a $10k tax exemption for veterans, so property taxes are actually going down...because that's just the way it's going to be.
I don't own any gear newer than the 1970s because I like the sound, I can rebuild it and it doesn't cost more than my first house. And, I still have a couple thousand LPs. Because I like the sound.
Same goes for my house and cars, except my wife's 2018 Honda CR-V and a 1986 Mercedes Benz 560SEL. My daily driver is a 1953 Chevy truck with a 1995 LT-1 engine with electronics that should be in a museum, as one member says. All paid for.
That's why I can enjoy being retired, sit at the computer all day drinking coffee, and my biggest expense is property taxes.
Voters just approved a $10k tax exemption for veterans, so property taxes are actually going down...because that's just the way it's going to be.
My view is based upon a background as a musician and historian. Just like tracker action organs are best for performing Bach's music, vinyl and tape are best for accurately recreating Coltrane, Davis, Presley, and Stokowski. Down the media line, each new format (cassettes, CDs, streaming) has fostered a new set of reproduction devices best for that medium.
Am fortunate to have excellent analog repro equipment along with the best in digital. Listen and compare them every day and always find that the repro method dominant during that medium/artist's time is best. The best engineers active at any given time are able to maximize their equipment designs for the music/mediums of their day. It is arrogant and incorrect to assume that their production abilities were less than what we can do today.
Don't believe that we are "always getting better" in music reproduction but, rather, that we are always getting "almost as good." The best analog tape is, absolutely, better than any digital source. Don't argue this point if you haven't heard 1/2 inch 2-track recordings played at 30ips. Similarly, quality redbook CDs are better than streaming MP3s.
More people and less cultural importance placed on music generates less interest in quality audio reproduction. Thinking that the latest Class D amplifiers are better than Class A ones from the 1960s only works if you don't listen to them.
Am fortunate to have excellent analog repro equipment along with the best in digital. Listen and compare them every day and always find that the repro method dominant during that medium/artist's time is best. The best engineers active at any given time are able to maximize their equipment designs for the music/mediums of their day. It is arrogant and incorrect to assume that their production abilities were less than what we can do today.
Don't believe that we are "always getting better" in music reproduction but, rather, that we are always getting "almost as good." The best analog tape is, absolutely, better than any digital source. Don't argue this point if you haven't heard 1/2 inch 2-track recordings played at 30ips. Similarly, quality redbook CDs are better than streaming MP3s.
More people and less cultural importance placed on music generates less interest in quality audio reproduction. Thinking that the latest Class D amplifiers are better than Class A ones from the 1960s only works if you don't listen to them.
Last edited: