Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?

"EADGBE" <hwbosshoss@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:618995cb-7dbb-4a94-806c-a2c24de7541e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem
> to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a
> thoughtful answer.

**Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am 
intimately familiar with old equipment.

 I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to
> me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new =
> good".

**Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old, good
= 
good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good.

>
> You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear
> like this.  You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it?

**They're deluded.

  If there
> is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid
> for, it is in the area of home audio.  If there wasn't such a demand
> for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as
> they are.  YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not!

**Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices.


>
> I suggest you try to see past your obvious bias against "old stuff"
> and listen--REALLY listen--to a wide variety of "old" gear.  You might
> be very surprised at what you hear.

**In my business, I get to listen to old equipment very regularly. Make no

mistake: A great deal of new equipment is crap. No doubt about it.
However, 
there are a raft of old models which were and still are crap.

>
> NEWER IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER.  For proof of that, just listen to an
> iPod.  UGH.

**And old is not always better.

Trevor Wilson