Trevor Wilson a écrit :
> "Major Jocelyn" <majorj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:BHWUj.4139$zm2.12557@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Trevor Wilson a écrit :
>>> "Major Jocelyn" <majorj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:rpNUj.16181$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.
>
> **You don't know that. You're guessing. I promise you this: After 30
years,
> no amplifier will meet it's published specs, unless you've replaced
every
> electrolytic cap in the product. Of the specific products you mentioned,
I
> have a great deal of experience with the Luxman, the Quad, the Dynaco
and
> the Pioneers. ALL suffer from dried out electros. Amongst other things.
>
> 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.
>
> **Utter nonsense. You can buy decent quality modern equipment, as well
as
> crap.
>
>> And unlike you I do not make a living servicing NEw equipment.
>
> **I make a living servicing new and old equipment. The old stuff is
nothing
> special. A lot of the new stuff is nothing special.
>
> Trevor Wilson
>
>
If a good vintage amp of receiver have been well taken care it can (and
probably will give you years of pleasure. On the other hand if it was
not then it will have to be serviced and sometime it is not worth the
money (and the time involved). I have seen people that have bought H/K,
Rotel and Nad that where totally scrapped by the previous owner. I have
also see Luxman, Quad, Radford, and H/K stuff that where in pristine
condition. As for my Radford I have it check by one guy at our service
dept that is a Radford Nuts and all the spec where still on the spot.
One thing that I did'nt care before that we see on new stuff is a Remote
control. I did'nt care before but when I broke my ankle this winter you
bet I was craving for one (and I still do today after 3 month);-).
As for the Quality of today receivers, yes you can get decent and even
great quality modern equipment but not below 400$. I never get any
return on High-End Receivers It is always with the one that cost less
than 400$. This is not Utter nonsense as you said. Do you remember that
some people recommend this poster to buy a 200$ basic receiver. What I
wanted to said is that you're better to spend that 200$ on a good
vintage amp or receiver than on a 200$ crappy basic receiver.
Jocelyn
Proud Son of Leo Major, DCM & Bar
To know why I am proud go there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Major
|
