Did the Old Receivers Sound Good?

My HK430 into ADS L1290ii sounds really quite good in my shop/gym. I'm always surprised. But I have three other systems in my house that sound better, all with recent components.

All great responses! Where to start! Testing specs don’t really show much. Distortion is low in vintage amps and modern gear. Noise floor has improved with preamps. Transistors in well made vintage amps had carefully selected transistors. transistor quality control was not as good as today. They tested matched transistors for each amplifier for high performance. Upside of the times.

Today they don’t, good enough mindset. Now there’s class D etc.

Kenwood KA-5500 is a great sounding amplifier! ST-70 I was never big fan. Same with the Mark III mono blocks. They made clean tube power, affordable or used to be lol.

Pioneer SX828 is great sounding unit. Favorite receiver from Pioneer to be honest.

Sansui makes some great gear too!

I’m not one to replace resisters for no reason. Capacitors I do change, in theory there supposed to sound like the specs. Tired caps change the sound as new production caps would. All part of the fun. When I recapped 7T, earth shattering change. I kept the resisters, changed the diodes, caps etc. Made such a huge difference. Transistors used in the 7T were selected for performance, no reason to change those ever unless there noisy / failed

That could be another comparison. Put new old stock capacitors in an older piece of equipment and then have modern capacitors and other components installed in the same piece of gear or a second identical unit just to hear the difference.

You really can't compare the vintage receivers to modern receivers even if you put modern caps and resistors, it changes the original sound of the vintage receivers when this is done.

There’s more to this than just the specs - I have a vintage system of Sansui AU-9500 with JBL L65 & Luxman TT at my summer place. It’s equal parts nostalgia/performance but it brings me just as enjoyable an experience as when I’m listening at home in my dedicated room. That vintage system fills the place with great music and good times. I can say emphatically that the vintage pairing of Sansui and JBL has a magical quality. Like a time machine for me... STILL sounds amazing and yes, all the vintage pieces have been upgraded and redone by a fabulous shop in Massachusetts that specializes in "better" vintage gear. So, maybe not better, but not worse - just different although equally enjoyable. Just my opinion.

True. Electronics have come “a long way.” Todays electronics are wave soldered using micro component SMDs and SMD semiconductors, robotically positioned on the computer designed boards, from computer designed and modeled circuits. 
 

The old stuff was designed by hand, individual circuits using discrete components.
 

Yeah, we’ve come a long way. But not sonically.

My first system purchased in 1973 was a Pioneer SX828 with Large Advent speakers, an Advent cassette deck, a Thorens TD160 turn table, and a  Sure V15 Cartridge.  The Pioneer, putting out 54 watts into 8 Ohms, is currently driving DCM Time Windows in a second home condo in Vermont.  The DCMs from my 80s system.  The source is a BlueSound Node.  
Overall character of a classic receiver is smooth and sweet as chocolate pudding that many people like and that is forgiving of poorly engineered recordings but presents an opaque picture of reality unlike modern electronics  that are as clear as a Riedel wine glass in the right system.  Dynamics are acceptable but far from the micro dynamic and macro dynamic resolution produced by today’s equipment.  Resolution in general is characterized by absence thereof.  Images are distinct but without the air that is present between images that presents the three dimensional, dense, and palpable images of today’s equipment.   Timbre makes instruments recognizable but that’s about it.  The tuners are able to pull in the signal well in metro areas and sound as acceptable as FM can sound. That said, they produce very nice un-fatiguing sound four hours of background listening and that renters of my ski condo enjoy.  I also enjoy the nostalgic sound when there for background listening.  They are built for reliability if maintained by cleaning volume and balance controls and recapping the few caps they have as evidenced by my almost 50 year old unit.  In conclusion, they are far from todays standards, pretty to look at (oiled wood, blue and white lights glowing, satin finished metal), reliable, and excellent for background listening.   Some like them better than today’s equipment.  Appreciate them for what they are.   To each our own ears.   It amazes me how far technology in our hobby has evolved   

 

 

In Junior High School (70’s) I bought a Pioneer SX 535 with lawn money, and after awhile I came to the conclusion it was terrible. My next purchase as an audio salesman was a Kenwood KA-5500 integrated. It was a sweet sounding amplifier, that I wish I still had. I wish I’d have used my salesman’s discount to buy a Marantz, but I wasn’t a fan of FM so I’m sure the Kenwood was the better choice. Marantz had the great knobs, especially the tuning knob but the Kenwood had meters!

My guess is that the Kenwood would still stand up well to modern amps… my buddy who had a Dynaco ST 70 amp liked the sound of my Kenwood.

Of course to be fair the old equipment would have to have new caps and have all the parts and switches cleaned but what I really want to know is old spec tube equipment, new spec tube equipment, old spec transistors and new spec transistors all factory fresh all tested at the same time in the same listening room I’m sure each is going to sound good with certain speakers and not with others but inquiring minds want to know

I wish there was a shop @jason-mc9. Why I work on my own equipment. New vs vintage really isn't a fair comparison unless capacitors have been charged to match new performance. 

I have always heard huge improvement over a recap. 40-50-70 year old capacitors just don't work the same as new. 

@curtdr  nr1200 marantz? I would have to take a listen. But I directly compared a marantz 7t with marantz 16b recapped serviced. Upgraded signal caps, filter caps, change out of spec resisters. 

I compared it to a Marantz PM8006 integrated $1500. There was no comparison with 7t and 16b were so much better. Friend has a marantz 30 class D integrated, he was shocked  I really wanted to like the PM8006 but felt sterile, flat cold. Nr1200 being more of an intro amp. I don't see it beating PM8006 or a dual mono block separates from the 70s.

22xx serial 1970s I could see it beating it but I am open minded take listen when i get a chance. 

 

 

Do any members out there have a vintage stereo shop. that way we could compare old equipment versus new equipment, head to head in the same room on the same speakers. I would like to hear the results of this if somebody out there can do this for us please. I also have a question the modern equipment does have room correction which is going to give it an advantage, but is there a way to add correction to older equipment like that? I would also like to see a comparison of old tube equipment versus new to equipment and old transistor equipment versus new and just find out which is the best. Hey, this is a great subject, way to go. Very interesting.

depends... I gave up on the "vintages" from the 1970s after I did some serious A/B testing vs. the newer little Marantz nr1200 amp and that little Marantz blew 'em all away (including the vintage Marantz)

that said, I have used an Onkyo Integra receiver from 1986 with excellent results for years... tx88 

also, my totl Pioneer Elite receiver from 1999 sounds rich, deep, gorgeous

I have all marantz vintage separates, recapped vs recapped marantz receivers. Marantz 15,16,250,500 amp with marantz 7t, 7c, 33, 3300 all sound better then the 22xx series. 

Marantz 18 receiver can sound very good, marantz 15 and 7t and marantz 20 in one.

 

Selling audio in the 70’s and early 80’s, I went through a lot of equipment for my personal system.  The best receiver I ever owned was a Kenwood KR9400.  It was a beast but also sounded excellent.  I was driving a pair of Rectilinear 7 tower speakers, around $800.00 a pair with a Thorens TD 125AB Mark II turntable and a Shure V15 type III cartridge.  I also had the Advent  cassette deck which was a rebranded Wollensack (3M) deck.  I have vivid memories of the sound of that system which was all good.  Like a dope, I sold it when the next latest and greatest thing came along. It took a long time but I finally learned my lesson. 

Worked in a couple of stores in the 70's that sold a wide selection of receivers from most of the "hot" electronics companies of the day. There were definite levels of quality in build and also in sound between brands. It wasn't all that difficult to pick out certain brands in blind tests on a pretty consistent basis. I am not into calling out the weak sisters (we thought) of the day. I recently bought a really nice oldie from my personal favorite line of the day. Always loved the look and performance from back then. The look is still great but performance wise it has lost a lot of its shine. I still love the look.

We should add, at the same time some darn good sounding speakers were becoming affordable, AR turntable changed things, and the music content was revolutionary!!!

Try to remember that quality of electronics in the 50s & 60s was judged by Stereo Review and Audio on their specs. Even design engineers of the era were spec oriented. When subjective listening came along with Stereophile and TAS specs went out the window critically. They are both important but the overall sound of a system, not one component, is what matters. Did Macintosh get better when they went to solid state from tubes? Better specs but less great sound. I came to realize recently that my whole system had been voiced subconsciously around my Counterpoint hybrid amp. When it and it's tubed input died it created whole bag of worms from front end pieces to cables trying to restore synergy with the speakers (ML stats).1

They had character. You knew it was a Marantz when you heard it, a Sansui, an Onkyo, a Kenwood, or a Mac. Each had its own sound. I don’t know if you can really compare that in todays terms…..they all sound more alike in my opinion. 

Crustycoot, yep, similar findings.

I think it's always difficult to compare old hifi equipment w/ new stuff for the obvious reason the former is "old" & probably does not sound as good as it once did. Who bought a receiver back then & didn't use it much & took great care of it? Not many! Besides that, some of the parts themselves wearing out or getting very noisy even if well cared for? 

That said, I find it interesting that the better quality tube based equipment from the 60's (Mac, HK, Marantz, Fisher etc.), if brought up to original specs as needed, can still mostly hold their own vs. much of today's stuff that isn't heroically sized / priced. Forget about amps or preamps that cost north of $10K. There simply was no amp or preamp that cost that much back then even adjusted for inflation assuming about the value of the dollar is about 1/10 what is was back in 1960.

If a company can't make a great sounding amp, pre amp, DAC etc. that is very reliable for $20K,  $50K,  $100K or whatever absurd amount beyond that, they're in the wrong business. You can buy a very nice car (BMW, Merceds, Audi, Lexus etc) w/ a half decent sound system for that which has WAY more complexity, parts costs, engineering & can get you to & from your favorite hifi store in style!

 

I’m still using my 1989 vintage NAD 7600 in my reference system. This was NAD’s best integrated amp and tuner put on the same chassis: 150 wpc into 8 ohms, 500 watts of dynamic power into 4 ohms for 200 milliseconds (ten times the typical duration for this spec). But specs are not the point, as has often been stated here. Sure that I could improve my system with newer amplification, I had a friend’s Primare A30.1 for several weeks: a dual mono design, award winning and with many faithful fans, made in Sweden in the twenty-teens. The NAD sounds more natural (more realistic instrumental timbre), creates a wider and deeper soundstage, and is better at specifying the location of instruments in space. Also tried another friend’s Outlaw; same result. The differences are very slight; both the Primare and the Outlaw sounded great (although I was disappointed with vinyl through the Outlaw, while the Primare had no phono circuit at all). But the NAD sounded just slightly better than these much newer units. The NAD has been checked out, but I’ve not had to re-cap it or in any other way modify it; even the hard-wired power cord is original. And the NAD, besides having a tuner, also has a first-rate RIAA equalized MM/MC phono stage, very useful "semi-parametric" tone controls, an indispensable powered balance control (you’d be surprised how important fine-tuning the balance is for maximizing the spatial effects), and other features not found on most "high-end" separates.

Richard Clark, Peter Aczel and others have done empirical studies confirming the relative unimportance of amplification, so long as one’s equipment is sufficiently powerful never to be driven into clipping. This should be taken into account here.

Finally, one might also note the astonishing sound quality of the earliest stereo recordings, made before consumer stereo was even available for purchase. Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra made recordings for RCA "Living Stereo" of Dvorak and Mussorgsky in 1957 (the Westrex disc cutter made the production of stereo records possible in 1958). Available now on SACD, these recordings rival anything made since for sound quality. That should tell you all you need to know in order to answer the OP’s question.

As a college freshman I had only a "record player" with all electronics and speakers packed in the base -- dorm rooms are tiny and students are poor. Soph year I lived in a suite with an audiophile who supplied the music and wouldn't touch Japanese electronics -- European only. Ted read High Fidelity and from that source I learned basic concepts.Then Harry Pearson came along, so unlike most I never owned a receiver myself, only separates (some of which were badly mismatched!). Well, it's been a long learning curve. Owing to the development of sophisticated phono stages, I can't say how 21st century separates compare to my mid-1980s Bryston pre and B&K one-chassis dual mono amp. Meanwhile, analog stereo tuners of any quality have basically vanished from the market, so the old days were better in that respect. 

 

You will have to be of a certain age to appreciate this. 99% of my listening is done through either Quicksilver or prima Luna tube amps with a Nottingham turntable and gallo or sonus Faber speakers. That said every once in awhile I will throw on a foghat or kiss album on a secondary system I keep around. Marantz 2220 receiver pioneer pl7 turntable and original Advent loudspeakers. Does the system sound anywhere as good as my main system? No. Is it fun? Absolutely. Takes me right back to sitting in a buddy's bedroom listening to Ted Nugent in the late 70s. I think of it like driving an old car. Any late model Toyota Camry will out accelerate handle and brake better than any of the sports cars I've owned but there is something so satisfying and pure driving an early 70s MGB. Nothing wrong with nostalgia.

The Japanese electronics from the late 60’s -early 70s was inferior

How about the V-Fets from Sony and Yamaha, they do not look so inferior sonicwise even by todays standards.

I miss the buying experience in the 70's.  Was in the Navy at the time and lived in Souther California.  Every Sunday in the LA Times Sunday paper there was a section called the Calendar section and it had all the ads from Pacific Stereo, University Stereo and the likes.  There were real stores where you could go and listen to real gear!  I got some pretty good gear on stuff they wanted cleared once they knew I was a struggling sailor! LOL.   I also had a NAD 3020 guy talked me into it and I was glad he did. SQ vertical climb and so few watts.  Looked like the future back then.  There was a wall of reel-to-reels at Pacific Stereo.  I had a philips.  I stuck with NAD all these years up to this time.  Sure miss hanging at the stores.

To get right to the OP’s point about "specs": The attempt to assign a number to audio performance is often a futile attempt to arrive at something meaningful. Those numbers usually fell into various measurements of distortion and it seemed inconsistent that more expensive, more exotic gear would publish inferior specs compared to the receivers. We later learned that the popular standards of measurements were less meaningful than other "below the radar" specs, or performance parameters that were not published at all. To take some anxiety away from potential customers hyperventilating over "specs", I used to tell them that there were only 2 numbers that mattered: The price. Can they afford it? And, the physical measurements. Will it fit in the room, cabinet, etc? I understand this is a oversimplification, but did put them at ease to open up a meaningful conversation related to what mattered most to them.

Related to the question: "Did the old receivers sound good?", my answer is an emphatic "YES!!!" If we’re refering to the delivering a musically satisfying emotioinal experience, I think I can site hundreds of examples -- from a customer index cards we collected from the 70s to validate this claim.

If receivers from the 70’s were a good example of "good", then the integrated amps from the 70’s were "better" and separates were "best".

But, time marches on. About 10 years later, Nakamichi teamed up with Nelson Pass and incorporated Statis technology in their receivers. With zero negative feedback and other innovations, these eclipsed earlier designs IMHO. I still have a TA2 and TA4 in my collection of "excellent" examples of stereo receiver performance of the 1980s.

A study of the performance of the "big boy" receivers of the 70’s will find a couple performamce constraints that can be remedied. One easy & cheap. The other a little a little more complicated. When the preamp jumper is replaced with an "audio quality" short interconnect/jumper they really open up and become more detailed. Time: 15 seconds. Cost: about $40. The second constrant is the power cord. Even the best receivers (and most separate power amplifiers) of the day had a power cord attached that would not be suitable for a 2-slice toaster, muchless a piece of serious audio gear. Replacing these with modern "audiophile" power cords and upgraded "protective" device" pays major sonic dividents. We routinely do these "mods" in our shop, and I am often stunned at the sonic transformations. Yes, you get the expected improvements in detail, focus and dynamic contrast. But, the bigger surprise (to us anyway) are the changes in tonality, chord structure, warmth, balance, etc. More relaxed, fuller, and musically engaging. The power cord upgrade can be a minimally invasive removal of the factory installed cord and install the better cord in the same manner as OEM (maybe with a slight enlargment in input opening). Or, if the user is okay with sometinig a little more aggressive, cut an opening in the chassis and install a male EIC socket, replacing the internal high voltage wire with better cabling. This allows the customer to not only select their own power cord, but upgrade the cord in the future. Does this make an old receiver sound better than the latest technology? No. But, if they love their old receiver and want it to sound better it is a worthwhile investment.

Vintage gear has a certain easy laidback sound that I can enjoy, but head to head with an upper end Levinson or even Parasound system quickly reminds one what hifi sounds like.
 

Obviously, you only listened to one vintage receiver or integrated. Gave up the Levinson, CJ, Threshold, Mc, Carver, to go back to my Sherwood and A14 integrated. The sound is more articulate, detailed, and intimate with my older gear.

Over the last 10 years, I have bought and sold quite a few pieces of gear ranging in age from 75 years old, to less than 10 years old. I've reduced this collection down to what I consider to be the best pieces. These are my opinions, far from gospel.

My tube separates, integrated amps, and receivers from companies like Scott, Fisher, Acrosound, Pilot, and Grundig, when paired with the correct speakers, can rival even the most expensive gear for sound quality. For the most part, these devices can last forever with a small mount of maintenance and care. 

My solid state integrated amps and receivers also gold their own against newer gear I've demo'd. These pieces range in watt output from 30-100, and again, paired with the right speakers can rival some quite expensive gear. These pieces from Luxman, Marantz, Sansui, and Harman Kardon offer excellent value and sound quality. 

For more established folks that have high levels of disposable income, there are wonderful newer products available that can offer pride in ownership as well as fantastic sound quality. For those of us that have less disposable income, but still desire excellent sound quality and pride in ownership, there are quite a few vintage pieces that can fill that need. 

It boils down to personal preference, and there is no one size fits all solution. The only way to prove or disprove your theory of old vs. new, is to start setting up systems, listening, buying, selling, and swapping components to see for yourself. I'm a strong believer in the fact you can't buy you way to the top. It doesn't matter what your hobby is, the most expensive item will not make you proficient in that hobby. You can buy the most expensive sports car, but if you can't drive it, it's only a showpiece. You can buy the most expensive fire arm or compound bow, but without practice, these won't perform any differently in the hands of a novice. You can spend piles of money on expensive audio gear, and without proper set up, and room conditioning, they become show pieces easily bested by much less expensive gear. 

Only you can decide what you value most in your system. There are quite a few pieces of gear I would love to own and live with. Most of these pieces I can buy any given day new or used. I place a very high value on my vintage tube gear. Some of these pieces would take years of searching to replace. I'm not willing to make the trade from something rare, to something common, only to find its a lateral move in sound quality, or only slightly better sounding. My end goal is always enjoying the music.         

My situation is a bit of a hybrid one vs a true old against new. I have a HK 730 that I gutted, only keeping the amp section. I put new filter caps in along with some other caps, and did some point to point wiring. I’m feeding it from an inexpensive integrated and it’s pretty excellent to me. When running the integrated alone, it pales in comparison. I’ll possibly upgrade the integrated (substantially), and that should give me better insights into how the amp section of the HK compares to a current and upgraded option.

I’ve had Sansui, Kenwood and Pioneer SX receivers for quite a while. My SX1250 is still what I use for casual listening in my gym area but for critical listening it does not compare to my main system. They sure do look cool though. 

I remember my mid 80's Harman Kardon and Carver receivers sounded really good to me at the time.  But then Harman Kardon went to "Green" power and they weighed about 3 pounds.  Absolute junk!  I had 3 fail on me.  Now currently have a Outlaw RR2160MkII Stereo Receiver weighs a ton and makes my Dahli Zensor speakers sound great.

In my experience with the receivers of the 70s many had good amplifiers, but few had preamplifier performance to match.  Integrated amps were no different in this respect.  This applies only to transistor gear.  I recall fronting a Sansui AU 5500 with a Marantz 7 tube preamp, using the amp-in jacks and was impressed that the amp sounded as good as the Crown amp I used then, but with the jumpers in, was lackluster, flat, dull.  The Crown D60 was indistinguishable from the Model 8 tube amp, with a/d/s/ L710s. 

I have a vintage family room system consisting of a pioneer sx1250, pioneer pl 630 tt and diapason adamantes as my speakers. It sounds really good. Not as good as my reference system but not nearly as pricey and beautiful to look at with all that aluminum and walnut. For my guests, who can’t tell sound quality, they love it immensely because it reminds them of their youth. They are stunned by the sound quality. I believe the synergy between the adamantes and the 1250 is way better than I expected and it all looks so damn pretty. 

I used to sell audio in the heyday. The mainstream companies like Marantz, Pioneer and etc., seemed to save their audio goodness for their separates. They all made some halo products that to my ears were noticeably better sounding than their receiver lines. Of note, Sansui, Pioneer and Technics had high-ish end separates that really did rival some of the more esoteric brands and were priced accordingly. I know I didn't mention Marantz. To my ears, they didn't have the detail of the other higher end products, just my take. I had some early NAD which were a revelation for the money, but were unreliable.

FWIW...my Sony STR-V6 sounds amazing through a set of Focal Kanta No.2 speakers. 

Great question 

I have a set of the pioneer Z series separates in my main setup. 
Specs aside and ears alone this setup for $2,000 would turn heads 

in todays market. All four pieces have been refurbished. 
 

Listen to any audio professional who has made a name for himself as designer and manufacturer, Mark Levinson or John Curl for example, they've all been on the record saying the ascension of advancing design and manufacturing technologies has led to much better overall quality of both the parts and thus the end products. Vintage gear has a certain easy laidback sound that I can enjoy, but head to head with an upper end Levinson or even Parasound system quickly reminds one what hifi sounds like.

Had a Sansui 90-90 ( I think ) in the late 70's sold it and went to Carver  separates  5 years later. The Carver blew the Sansui away. Really made my 901's sing.

@wolfie62 +1!

I had a Marantz 2270 back in ’76-’77. Sounded fine! Soon I bought separates (AGI 511, GAS Son of Ampzilla, Mitsubishi DA-F10). I should have kept the 2270 for use as an FM tuner. Now I think the vintage receivers/integrated amps are fine sonically. The old gear offered good to great sound per dollar. Today’s over-hyped over-priced stuff - NO!

I still have my Kenwood KR8010 receiver and use it in my 4th set up, and it still sounds very good, if in the Chicago area PM me and I will set up a listening session for you.

The old stuff sounds better. Uncluttered by the placebo effect of high prices today, the old stuff sounded great and performed great. 

The Fisher 500 was a beautiful sounding piece of gear. Tubey and romantic, yes, but very enjoyable.

Back in the day, I had tube and SS separates and a couple of different tuners and all of them were the weakest link in my system.  Having said that, David Hafler and Bozak sounded pretty darn good back then.

Bought a new Sansui AU 717 in 1978. Double mono design. I thought it sounded great.

Had a real nice marantz integrated bought new in the 70s, very nice well rounded sound as stated by some here, but nowhere the clarity of today's equipment.

Yes, yes they did sound great, and many still do.

Memory based on sounds is faulty. Unless you have one with a modern component to compare, it's not a fair fight.

No, they don’t stand up to todays gear.

Ive recapped/rebuilt several Marantz units myself, and while they have a certain charm to their sound, they don’t stand up to critical scrutiny in listening tests. 
 

Was just comparing a Marantz 7T with a Cary SLP-30 (Both had full recaps done by me recently) And while the Marantz is an impressive performer, the Cary is a more refined unit. Granted, I’m comparing apples to oranges here, but the question was about modern/vintage. And by some standards, the Cary could even be considered vintage now.

The Japanese electronics from the late 60’s -early 70s was inferior

to today’s same value gear adjusted for inflation.

It has to be.

In 50 years some progress has been made right?

 

Now if you go back to the pre transistor tube days maybe 

someone could make an argument.

 

 

 

Yes,

But it is not about specs,that's marketing one up-manship, keep in mind, the main brands made their reputations with receivers, then separates .... Of course old equipment needs to be checked/renewed by a pro, components drift out of original specs ...

You still have the split, TUBES or SS. And early Transistors vs later with better transformers ...

I have 2 Fisher 500C Tube Receivers,

 

One is at VAS getting it’s tuner aligned.

Main one, I loan to friends when their equip is in the shop. Everyone is surprised how good it sounds.

SS: I’ve got a Yamaha CR1040, two sets of speakers, shop and basement system, sounds darn good

 

Onkyo AVR, Current Sony AVR, they are nothing to sneeze at.

Many times we hear our better equipment thru the better speakers, thus

.......