2. amps-preamps
  3. 1365280197

Modern High end vs. old receiver

So I recently sent in my Aesthetix Janus in for a capacitor upgrade, which leaves me without a pre-amp. In desperation for a little music, I brought in my the Kenwood Kr-3090 that I inherited from my grandmother and have been enjoying in the garage. 25W, made 1978-1981 or so. Damn thing sounds almost as good my Aesthetix Janus and Audio Research VT-100 MkII. Now don't get me wrong, there's a difference, but I can happily sit and listen and fully lose myself in the music.

I am using Acoustic Zen Adagio speakers, which work well with low-powered electronics, as evidenced by Robert Lee's matching them with Triode corporation tubes at the shows. I'm also using my standard front end - Oppo BDP-83 with Brystond BDA-1 and Acoustic Zen Absolute cables. Still.... jeez, it's unreal how much better it sounds than some of the other high-end gear I've had in here.

My learning from this is that the source matters, and you should not look askance at equipment just because it is old or inexpensive.
128x128darkj
frogman
7,456 posts
 
I think you're right. Thanks for the reality check :-)
csontos
1,311 posts
 
Al, you're obviously blessed with better ears than me. Although I can hear quality differences with great recordings, it's the poor ones that seem to be a better yard stick for me.
almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
That's interesting, Peter (Csontos), and somewhat surprising to me. I don't make any special claims for my hearing, but it has always been my experience that if a garbage recording is reproduced as Garbage A by one component, and as Garbage B by another component, the two garbage reproductions tend to be harder to distinguish, and certainly harder to judge as to which is more lifelike, than if a great recording is reproduced by the two components as Relatively Lifelike Sound A and Relatively Lifelike Sound B.

Basically, with a garbage recording the nuances that would otherwise distinguish their reproduction by the components being compared tend to be swamped by the inaccuracies of the recording. Which in turn makes any judgment about which reproduction is closest to the sound of live music pretty much meaningless, as the best answer is usually "neither."

Regards,
-- Al
csontos
1,311 posts
 
Sure I agree with you but you say tomato and I say, well you know what I mean. I was referring to the gear in that the better the component, the better the image that can be gleaned from the recording and ime, gear has a tougher time with poorer ones. Garbage in, garbage out is a given. But the poorer recordings tend to reveal the quality of the components to a higher degree ime. My statement regarding your ears was sincere. Whether one or the other or both recordings resemble true to life sound or not I think is irrelevant to this question. There is a level of reality there chock full of all the cues that would confirm that. Imo, it's tougher to tell the difference between components using great recordings just because they have an easier time making them sound good and thereby masking their own shortcomings. Btw, you did say the inverse is also true. I'm a bit confused now as to what you were referring to there.
almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
Btw, you did say the inverse is also true. I'm a bit confused now as to what you were referring to there.
My original statement: "A point to keep in mind is that the better the quality of the source MATERIAL, the more apparent hardware differences will become, at least upon direct comparison."

The inverse of that statement: "A point to keep in mind is that the poorer the quality of the source MATERIAL, the less apparent hardware differences will become, at least upon direct comparison."
My statement regarding your ears was sincere.
Thank you kindly.

Best regards,
-- Al
More to discover