"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:68i1ubF2r7028U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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 *****s. 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'd agree completely about the over priced comment. The prices of a lot
of
used "vintage" equipment is more than they are actually worth. A lot of
it
is nostolgia, not technical superiority. But I'd disagree some on the
comparison of design. Class ab amps have not changed designs all that
much.
State of the art class ab amps from the 70s in good condition have
excellent
specifications and that really has not been improved on much. And those
specifications are well better than any human detectable levels. Power
supply designs have changed but more of that is related to making them
more
economical to manufacture and ****p rather than technically superior. Much
of the weight in old high end gear is the power transformer and big caps.
No one can afford to ****p a 50lb unit in volume any more. Making more
efficient use of power has improved a great deal over the 70s but again
that
doesn't result in better sound.
|
