Trevor Wilson a écrit :
> "Major Jocelyn" <majorj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:rpNUj.16181$HB2.8355@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Trevor Wilson a écrit :
>>> "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.
>> Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the
>> price you will pay for new crappy stuff.
>
> **Wrong. You MIGHT get a piece of adequately functioning equipment. Or
not.
> You might end up with a piece of junk wich requires vast sums to be
spent,
> in order to bring it up to a reasonable level of performance.
>
>>> 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 see that you really but really don't know what you are talking about.
>
> **Really? Let me outline _my_ experience for you:
>
> * 1974-1979 - Service manager for Marantz Australia.
> * 1979 - Now - Service tech for my own business. I've serviced thousands
of
> different products, including many Pioneers. Unlike you, I KNOW exactly
what
> is wrong with 1970s vinage equipment.
>
> The old Pioneers are better than some and worse than others, in both
design
> and construction. In all cases, they cannot come close to modern,
PROPERLY
> designed equipment, in performance on a Dollar for Dollar basis. Second
hand
> prices are, of course, difficult to assess. I can tell you, however,
that
> 1970s equipment tends to be over-priced.
>
> Now: Tell me about YOUR experience. How many old Pioneers have you
serviced?
>
>
> Trevor Wilson
>
>
I have own several Pioneer receivers and amp (starting with the
SX-626,going to the SX-939 then the SA-9900) followed by Kenwood KA-9100
then Sansui CA-3000 Preamp with Dynaco ST-400 power Amp followed by
Radford SC-242 Preamp and Quad 405 Power Amp and Finally since 1990 the
Luxman L-550. All these component are still working perfectly. I gave
the CA-3000/Dynaco ST-400 to a kid (22 years old is a kid for me) a
couple weeks ago. I admit that I had to replace some capacitor on the
Quad and the Dynaco + cleaning of the other one but as I said they all
work perfectly. As for my Experience, I work as a senior salesmen in a
Hi-Fi chain so I know by the quatity of receivers that stop working
after being in use for less than 2 years that today's stuff do not have
the quality of construction and design that the vintage stuff do.
And unlike you I do not make a living servicing NEw equipment.
|
