it is a matter of preference:
personally, i prefer the apogee duetta signature, quad 57s, infinity servostatic, koss electrostatic, accoustats, and tympany 1 d, to any speaker in current production. |
gentlemen:
the proof of the pudding is what someone does with one's money. those of us who purchase "vintage" components do so with the awareness that there are other choices. chances are, those who prefer vintage gear have also heard modern gear and prefer the vintage gear because it sounds more like the real thing than current production components. |
hi doug:
this hobby is based upon subjective perception and preference.
one judges the sound of a stereo system without regard to the application of technology.
thus, in a darkened room, one may prefer stereo system a to stereo system b, and, hypothetically, stereo system a could have its components produced iduring 1970 and stereo system b, could have its components manufacturered during 2008.
preference is unpredictable. thus there is no evidence to support your statement "i see very few places in life where technological advancement is not to be preferred", other than your own opinion, of which you are entitled.
i happen to prefer the sound of stereo systems whose components were available during the 70's and 80's.
of course, our basis for assessing "sound quality" may be diametrically opposed to each other.
i have a favorite stereo system from the 70's that i would prefer over any stsereo system comprising current-production components. |
hi doug:
my preference is based upon hours and hours of listening at ces shows, stereophile shows, audio clubs, audio dealers and visits to friends' and acquaintance stereo systems.
if you are so convinced of the superiority of current production stereo systems, would you care to make a wager ?
you and i will select a stereo system. i will confine myself to components from the 70's and 80's , and you can assemble a stereo system of your choice.
place me in a room, blindfolded and i will listen to both stereo systems, according to some procedure.
i will indicate my preference, for either stereo system.
i will bet i prefer my stereo system at least 90 percent of the time.
what say you ? |
hi doug:
my vintage system would include stacked quad 57s. clearly a speaker preferred over any in production today. you could not come up with a stereo system i would prefer over the quads.
it's all about preference and not nostalgia. |
quad 57s could be driven by a 35 watt maple tree el 34 amp, or vtl deluxe 120 in triode mode. |
in order to compare live music with a recording, it is necessary to compare the recording with the source. this means one must have access to a live performance in one's listening room. orchestral music is out of the question.
it may be feasible to record a single instrument and compare the recording to the live performance, if a musician will copperate. still, the project has other difficulties.
aural memory is unreliable. trying to compare one's memory of the sound of a piano. eg.g, to a recording of a piano is probably an invalid procedure.
thus, it reverts to preference and opinion regarding the issue of current production vs vintage components. subjectivity and opinion are the main elements of our listening experiences. |
is it possible that musicians might disagree ?
if so, the answer to thread is: it is a matter of opinion and preference ?
if you can't compare the recording with the sound of the instrument recorded, you don't have a scientifc assessment of the accuracy/inaccuracy of timbre of a stereo system. you have an anecdotal account, based upon memory. even if you are a musician, your recollection is not perfect.
there is no reference, other than memory to compare to the sound of a stereo system, unless the musician is playing in the room and a recording is made of the performance.
if memory is the basis of judgment the result is conjectural, not factual. |
lets look at the main trend in audio reproduction:
increasing levels of detail and focus.
it would seem that if you select a component, say a cone speaker and compare it to a typical cone speaker in the 60s or 70s, there would be a difference in resolution.
is more resolution necessarily better ?
i would rather turn the clock back to 1970, given the commercially available components of that period.
while one may use the terms subtractive and veiled to describe the performance of many a stereo system of that time, at least they did no harm.
unfortunately many of today's speakers, amps, preamps and cd players do harm, while providing "greater information". |
