On May 9, 10:32=A0am, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "James" <ja...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:aOWdncrlNaFMy7nVnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >news:68i1ubF2r7028U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> "Major Jocelyn" <maj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>news:rpNUj.16181$HB2.8355@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> Trevor Wilson a =E9crit :
> >>>> "EADGBE" <hwbossh...@[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.
>
> >>>> =A0I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to
> >>>>> me that you are one of those who thinks that "old =3D bad" and
"new =
=3D
> >>>>> good".
>
> >>>> **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy =3D bad.
Ol=
d,
> >>>> good =3D good.. New, crappy =3D bad. New, good =3D good.
>
> >>>>> You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage
gear
> >>>>> like this. =A0You 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
b=
e
> >> spent, in order to bring it up to a reasonable level of performance.
>
> >>>> =A0 If there
> >>>>> is one area where people are very picky about getting what they
paid=
> >>>>> for, it is in the area of home audio. =A0If there wasn't such a
dema=
nd
> >>>>> for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high
a=
s
> >>>>> they are. =A0YOU 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
thousand=
s
> >> 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
basi=
s.
> >> 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'd agree completely about the over priced comment. =A0The prices of a
l=
ot
> > of used "vintage" equipment is more than they are actually worth. =A0A
l=
ot
> > of it is nostolgia, not technical superiority. =A0But I'd disagree
some =
on
> > the comparison of design. =A0Class ab amps have not changed designs
all =
that
> > much.
>
> **Actually, they've changed quite a bit. Well, perhaps not the power
amps.=
> Tuners, in particular, have improved in leaps and bounds. A bane of my
lif=
e,
> has been servicing old analogue tuners that drift. Digital tuners don't
> drift. Some old 1970s stuff used LM741 class OP amps in preamp stages.
> Shocking performance. Modern OP amps are far superior. More importantly,
> howeer, has been the superior current ability of quality modern
products,
> compared to 1970s receivers.
>
> > 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
level=
s.
>
> **Assuming, of course, that every electrolytic cap has been changed.
>
> =A0 Power
>
> > supply designs have changed but more of that is related to making them
> > more economical to manufacture and ship 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 ship a 50lb unit in volume any more.
=A0Makin=
g
> > more efficient use of power has improved a great deal over the 70s but
> > again that doesn't result in better sound.
>
> **Not with linear power supplies. The laws of physics hasn't altered
since=
> the 1970s.
>
> Trevor Wilson- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Agreed on the tuners. But fm is not exactly the preferred signal
source any more so the quality of the fm tuner is not on my list of
critical elements. I'll bet it's been 6 months since I had an fm
station on at home.
Not sure what your point is with the power supply comment? I'm not
trying to argue with the laws of physics. Either can be designed to
provide adequate power for the requirement. A good linear one will be
pretty heavy. A switched one can provide a lot of power with way less
space and weight.
If the point you are making is that new equipment will have a whole
lot less power overhead then you'll get no argument out of me. But
again, that's not on my list of priorities. Yes, my amps are
disipating enough power to light up a bunch of 75 watt bulbs while
operating, I know it, I don't care.
|
