In reading this Newsweek article I get the impression that updating a decades old piece of audio electronics is preferable to buying new for the “ultimate” sound.
Given the quantum leap advances in electronics over the past several decades it simply seems counter- intuitive, and almost absurd, that you couldn’t build (or manufacture & sell) a better, cleaner more powerful audio amplifier for less money using modern components, and techniques, and yet reasonable people see the “modify old” route as being the most productive.
Why is this the case? Why is modified older audio gear preferable to the latest stuff? Are the “quantum leap advances in electronics” mainly digital advances, and primarily analog stuff like audio amplifiers are no better than in decades past?
Welcome to the unscientific, contradictory world of audiophiles. I used to work for a world-famous audio company and I have yet to figure out audiophiles as a breed. The one thing you will notice if you read their publications is that they fully resist scientific study, especially blind testing. They only go by a very arbitrary set of standards that don’t necessarily match their stated goals such as accurately reproducing sound as best as possible given modern technology.
I will make this short and just jump straight to accusing most audiophiles as being crackpots. The reason that they want older equipment is because they don’t want truly accurate sound reproduction that science gives them. Certain older equipment gives the sound “warmth” in their mind and that is desirable to them. The same can be said for turntables over CD’s and other high definition sound. They don’t want extreme accuracy of reproduction. They want a sound that is pleasant to their ear and the artifacts introduced by older equipment are pleasing to them.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on ones’ view, the audiogurus have bid up the price on certain vacuum tubes to absurdly high levels. Much of the golden-age amplifiers are highly prized in Asia - ironically enough. Minimalist single-ended output amplifiers using archaic outputs like 45 and 50 tubes, 2A3, etc.
Still - don’t confuse audio reproduction with audio reproduction. Electric guitar players often, if not always mostly prefer tube style amplifiers and vintage units go for serious $$$, and they don’t argue about whether solid state stuff is “better”. I happen to prefer tube amplifiers - to my ears they definitely sound more similar to what is heard at a live performance, whether this is distortion or not shouldn’t matter.
I think you’re missing the point. They are trying to create music; accurate reproduction of the sound doesn’t matter. The amps and whatnot are just another instrument.
Seeking a particular sound quality is one thing, but when you’re spending $23,500 for an 8-foot pair of speaker cables, you’re a crackpot. No two ways about it.
There is something to be said for older equipment that used discrete components and was carefully designed, as compared to modern equipment that makes heavy use of integrated circuits to cut component counts and costs, often at the expense of performance. If you look through the typical analog IC databook, the emphasis is on integration and cost-cutting, not high performance, low distortion, etc.
The fact is that audio quality in electronic gear (barring speaker technology, which has progressed a great deal) was as good as it would ever get in the late 1950’s. The greatest tube (valve) amplification was in place, there were amazing sounding microphones from Neuman and RCA to capture the sound on Ampex tape decks. It was all there in glorious analog.
Since then absolute sound quality has not increased, but the equipment to record and reproduce it has gotten more compact and acquired more useless “features,” none of which make the sound any better but do allow grown men to fiddle with something other than their naughty bits.
In the late 1970’s they finally got solid state sound perfected and some of the classic receivers and separates came along. For the same quality of these units one would have to pay many thousands of dollars/euros, but if one is diligent one can pick up these items for less than a hundred dollars. Which makes having one refurbished properly for any price more than worth it. I am using a Pioneer SX 650 receiver, a 1977-era unit, as my recording studio’s power amp. It claims 35watts, but I’m convinced it’s much more. Oh, and I paid $20 for it.
Then came digital, and sound quality took a huge step back to the dark ages. Very sad.
And I presume that you would be able to back this falsifiable claim up with some sort of demonstrable evidence, unlike all of those silly audiophiles mocked elsewhere on these boards, correct?
The real question is, however, do they swallow? If they don’t, you’re paying too much.
threemae, early digital machines were absolute crap. They had a sample rate well below what your average MP3 file has these days. Some of the early models had a defect which prevented them from encoding at the full rate which they were supposed to. Modern encoding rates are much better, but even so, you still hear people in the industry debating what the right bit rate should be and whether certain instruments (such as drums) should be recorded analoge or digital.
That’s one of the reasons why a lot of your “serious” bands issued remastered CDs in the early 90s. The first CDs didn’t have the best sound quality (not to mention that in the case of The Doors, the label tried to prevent piracy by stripping out the high end), so bands that knew their fans were picky about sound quality forced the labels to remaster the CDs.
I mentioned this in another thread long ago but here goes again:
I have a friend that mixed and remasters records for a major record company. According to him there is a longstanding and unresoved debate in the business as to how remasters should be made. Should they;
1.) Be made to sound like the original vinyl album with the coloring inherant to the vinyl recording process?
or
2.) Should they go back to the source tapes, the musicians notes, the arrangers notes and the mixers notes to make the music sound the way it was intended to sound when it was originally recorded?
The point of course is that “audiophiles” will listen to a remasterd CD then pompously proclaim that it sounds like shit because it is different than the vinyl record. They don’t care about better, they just want what’s familiar.
Which brings me to my last point. “Audiophiles” don’t listen to music, they listen to equipment. Let them play with their expensive toys. Yes, high end equiment can go a long way in making listening to music more enjoyable. However, if you are to the point where you think that $23,000 cables make better music then you should junk all of your audio gear, swear it off for good and only listen to chamber music in small rooms.