On May 9, 10:35=A0am, Major Jocelyn <maj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Trevor Wilson a =E9crit :
>
>
>
> > "Major Jocelyn" <maj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >news:BHWUj.4139$zm2.12557@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Trevor Wilson a =E9crit :
> >>> "Major Jocelyn" <maj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>>news:rpNUj.16181$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
see=
m
> >>>>>> 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
a=
m
> >>>>> 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.
O=
ld,
> >>>>> 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 =
be
> >>> 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
pai=
d
> >>>>>> for, it is in the area of home audio. =A0If there wasn't such a
dem=
and
> >>>>>> for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as
high =
as
> >>>>>> 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
abou=
t.
> >>> **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
thousan=
ds
> >>> 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
moder=
n,
> >>> PROPERLY designed equipment, in performance on a Dollar for Dollar
bas=
is.
> >>> 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-910=
0
> >> 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
yea=
rs,
> > no amplifier will meet it's published specs, unless you've replaced
ever=
y
> > 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
an=
d
> > the Pioneers. ALL suffer from dried out electros. Amongst other
things.
>
> > =A0I gave
> >> the CA-3000/Dynaco ST-400 to a kid (22 years old is a kid for me) a
cou=
ple
> >> 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
bei=
ng
> >> 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
a=
s
> > 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
noth=
ing
> > 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-
Hi=
de quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What I said was that those particular pioneers were not any better
than a new $200 stereo. Not that you could not get a better deal by
buying used equipment. Those particular pioneers can be had for under
$100. Could you get a better used amp for $200 than you could a new
one? Sure, as long as used is ok with you. That's not true for
everyone though.
|
