What steps forward were actually steps backward?

The modern inexpensive int. amp (under $1800) which I've owned recently, haven't been all that great sounding especially given their cost.(The exception, a French Kora "Explorer" which IMO is an outstanding sounding amp) The sound quality of older Mid-80's Sony "Legato" int. amps is excellent and are absolute bargins used. My 70's Kenwood KA-7100 stills sounds/performs as new. Tuners haven't advanced at all, IMO. Since my introduction (early 70's) to this crazy hobby, I've come to the conclusion that great sounding/musical systems need not cost a fortune to assemble. Much of what we've been programmed to believe is not necessarry true. I see a big demand in older equipment! Without question, hugh steps forward have been made in IC/Spk./Power cables.

Wonderful comments so far about reaching the goal of enjoying the music when we listen, rather than merely unveiling the remaining inadequacies in a system, when we upgrade part of it.
The best upgrade would be one we can audition in our own system, before we irrevocably commit our money. I have made many "upgrades" based on faith in opinion of those more experienced, until finally reaching a point where I can feel confident deciding for myself.
Home trials, with their lack of sale pressure, have proven very valuable in forming my own preferences. Joining an audio club has also been of great value, unless you already have a neighborhood circle of audio buddies.
Although it seems too obvious to state, there is musical, and audio taste, so that each of us must protect our own sense of what is really enjoyable. In every field, a guru guides the novice to reach personal sophistication, even if it is not identical to the guru's view. At least the phrase rhymes.

To Johnnatais's comments on timing, I want to comment, somewhat sheepishly because I know that what I am about to say borders on heresy or is at least un-PC in audio circles, that I wonder if the superb timing of cheaper systems (boomboxes, our car systems, clock radios) is in fact NOT preservation of the timing of music but rather a distortion of that timing.

I say this because I hear timing (and some other good things, like an extremely coherent and accessible presentation of the musical line of songs) more in these "cheap" systems than I do in live music (that's the heretical part). I've never been able to get into Springsteen songs, to take just one example, as well on my home system as I can in the car or on the clock radio, save perhaps for the songs on Nebraska. Although it was better with my old Quads than with the succession of highly-regarded dynamic speakers I've had since.

And another thing: I love detail and resolution. Why can't I have it all? :-)

An argument for Downgrading!

Drubin: Ah-HA! You have noticed the better timing of cheap systems! Actually, I am not the first to make this observation, as several intrepid audio reviewers (who soon thereafter were flipping burgers) comment on this phenomenon as well, one explanation being not a distortion of timing ( this reminds me of the old "Do Tubes create musicality that's not there" debate), but the fact of cohesion due to fewer parts, a single loudspeaker driver (what tannoy markets as Coincident) and so on. Your old Quads share in this single-driver approach as well.

Having thought about this phenomenon myself over the last several years (and about the fact that while impressive, sound in high-end shops almost never tempts me to stay and enjoy the music, with stuff playing like Spectral and so on), I have come to the conclusion that the neurotic search for ultimate detail is just that, and that it ultimately dissects the music, except in the hands of a genius of some sort. The problem with today's designers (for the most part) is that they have no talent (as in no unexplained "gift"), but instead a clipboard with a list of dos and don'ts: Do: use acrylic, use thick faceplates, use Hovland Musicaps and so on.

While stereo is just electronics, music is much more, and rather than the purely technical approach used by businessmen cashing in on the latest fahion (now single-ended) these days, audio needs men of passion with the unexplained gift, such as the designer of the unfortunately expensive Jadis equipment, or the genius (whoever he is) of the ASL equipment, or the greats of the old days like Saul Marantz. This is why so much of the old stuff is gaining in value: it is set against a background of soulless business propositions. Let go the detail and be free! Besides, even the Wave 8s give me almost too much detail to deal with with sensitive speakers, and they're so much damned fun I forgot all about audio nitpickings for two years and simply listened to my entire record collection (and to hell with Linn recordings!): I have never had so much fun with music in my entire existence (unless it was those old reefer/Pink Floyd days). And the more sensitive the speakers, the more responsive, and the more responsive, the smaller wattage you require, and the smaller wattage translates into excellent timing, and lots of luscious detail.

Soon, an old Sherwood tube integrated I found will be restored and I will see what special magical ingredient it may have: 32 tube watts and a phono stage! Then, I will buy the Rega Ela or Naos speakers: very sensitive (92 db) and I know from experience nothing times like these - and they're reasonably priced! Think small, not big, think sensitive, not power hogs is my suggestion. Of course, sensitive speakers come in many flavours too, and you'll have to find the one which appeals to you, assuming you don't already have sensitive speakers. And you want to hear supreme timing on the cheap? Get yourself an old AR-XA and put a decent low-mass tonearm on it (Grace etc.), and then put a good MM on it. Cheap, fun, and educational, like this audio hobby should be, at least in part: Mitch Cotter of AR was another genius...and youll be astonished at the amount of detail this can retrieve. No timing, no fun, too much money, no fun. Sorry for the rant, but someone had to say it. But thanks for the discussion Drubin and Nrenter: a blast!

One of the reasons cheap systems appear to have better timing is that they don't have any bass, the midrange is emphasized and instead of real high frequencies you get some treble sizzle. On a typically arranged and recorded pop/rock songs from the last 50 years, such a lo-fi system will highlight the snare drum, rhythm guitars (or equivalents), the hi-hat cymbals and the lead vocal. Obviously, such a stripped down sound will have nothing if not toe tapping rhythm. Most standard or "premium" manufacturer installed car systems exhibit this characteristic sound.

Better audiophile systems can have excellent rhythm, but it usually depends upon treating the listening room with proper acoustic treatments to smooth out the deep bass response and maintaining a proper balance between the lower midrange and high frequencies.