I suspect with the right speakers i.e. High efficiency and easy load fisher amps would compete quite well with modern equivalents but most modern speakers are not so results would be compromised.
- ...
- 52 posts total
ZD, Mesch, Mapman, 77Jovian, thanks very much for the nice words. And kudos to Frogman if my suspicion is correct about there being a subtle cleverness underlying his post. French_fries, I doubt that you’ll find a more thorough take on the 500-C receiver than in this review. Be sure to read the entire review, though, including the measurements section, to get a well balanced perspective. Also, keep in mind that the 500-C contains something like 18 or 20 tubes, and a correspondingly large amount of circuitry, which increases the likelihood that whatever example of this receiver you may acquire may have condition-related issues, depending of course on the thoroughness of whatever restoration efforts it may have previously undergone. Speaking more generally, I don't have experience with receivers of that era, but I do have a fair amount of experience in recent decades with 1950's and 1960's separates produced by the leading manufacturers of the time, and in a couple of cases also with integrated amps. Based on that experience I'll second Mapman's comments, but I’ll add the proviso that vintage vs. modern comparisons need to be based on present day selling prices that are at least somewhat comparable. For example, I would expect that the modern day $2K tube component you referred to would not include a tuner, and would perhaps also not include either a preamplifier section or a power amplifier section. So that comparison adjusted for comparable functionality would involve modern components costing well upwards of $2K, while I suspect that a 500-C in reasonably nice condition, or alternatively a comparable vintage integrated amp, could be found for considerably less than $1K, especially with some patience. And so if the modern component(s) in that comparison were to come out ahead (and assuming that the vintage component is in top condition), it would probably say more about the price differential than about "vintage vs. modern" per se. In general (there are always exceptions, of course), IMO a **well restored** vintage tube component ca. 1955-1965, from one of the better manufacturers of the time (including Fisher), will handily outperform most of the solid state components that were produced during the subsequent 15 years or so. And assuming appropriate system matching will generally provide very pleasing performance compared to most modern components selling at or somewhat above the same price. Best regards, -- Al |
"...11-14-15: Dayglow John421-If that gear(NAD/JVC) is enough for you, that's great. For most of us on Agon we value sound quality over cost..." Nailed it! That's why there are three distinct strata of gear in this hobby: Low-fi, mid-fi and hi-fi, and we all have choices as to where we choose to be. I don't care where one chooses to dwell...good luck to everybody BUT.... And it's a big "but"..... "bragging" or "chirping" about (A) espousing one's heavily biased anecdotal merits about their race to the bottom AND/OR ESPECIALLY (B) anonymous pontification about equating the said cast-off bargain-basement pick-ups to quality-build gear performance wise or questioning the merits of why others choose hi-end quality gear and correlated price outlay Is, simply put, (politely) hardly a badge of honour , or (bluntly) irritating. |
Just never was that wealthy or foolish to spend thousands on audio equipment!But I know one thing,90% of the people who are wealthy accomplished it 4 different ways.They hit the lottery,they inherited it,they robbed a bank or spent many years cheating other people out of there money!Actually about 10% of the people that are wealthy actually earned it!If the shoe fits were it! |
- 52 posts total