Can a Amp be "timeless" and compete with todays amps?


I’ve been into hi resolution audio for 20+ years, well longer than that but acquired high quality gear about that time. I veered off into other interests for 15 years but still had my system sitting idle in it’s dedicated room. I became interested in it again 6 months ago and began to update it. I still have my Rega Planar 25 table and a Dragon phono stage.  I retained my CEC TL1 transport, but replaced my DAC with a Dinafrips Venus II, I also have the Hermes DDC which I feed my CEC into as well as my Cambridge Streamer. I sold my Genesis V speakers because they were having an issue with the left channel bass and since they were out of business I had no way to fix them, it was over my head. I found someone that wanted them and was willing to repair them himself. (he is very happy with them) I replaced them with some Goldenear Triton 1.r’s which I love. So here is the nostalgia part. I still have my VAC Cla 1 Mk II pre amp and my VAC Renaissance 70/70 Mk II amp. I feel they still hold up well sonically, so my thoughts are to send them both to VAC for the Mk III updates this fall of 2022, which includes replacing any necessary parts and "voicing" them back to new as intended when they were first made. I really believe these pieces are worthy of the restoration, are newer pieces today really going to make much headway? I cannot afford to replace these items with "like" items as I am retired and the discretionary income isn’t there anymore. I just feel like they are still really good and offer a very high quality sound. I mean 8- 300 B tubes can’t be all that bad can they? I’ve voiced the pre amp with with Telefunken 12AX7’s and I have a small stash of them. Tube sound is still great right?

128x128fthompson251

technological advancement is not always for the better in a subjectively driven, aesthetic pursuit where criteria people care about are highly complex and multi-variate

well worn example of sports/performance cars... new cars are better technologically in so many ways, but are boring to drive, lacks soul, involvement -- computerized/robotic perfect in some ways, as appliances and easy speed machines, but for those seeking thrills, man machine involvement, emotional engagement, development and sharpening of skills, they are sorely lacking

similarly, machines we buy to make music for ourselves to enjoy should, at their best, stir the senses, invigorate the soul, transport our spirits, connect us with beloved artists at the height of their artistry... technology in such devices makes for more choices, an expanse of possible presentations -- but different may/may not be better... we all strive to experience, and decide for ourselves....

@jjss49 

+10 for your well stated comments. 3 weeks ago I attended a classical music performance featuring a cello and piano duet. This past weekend my daughter and I went to a local jazz venue . Both experiences were quite different obviously but what they shared in common was the high degree of emotional involvement and listening joy. Both outings were simply wonderful. 

I believe most of us who love music strive to obtain some reasonable degree of this engagement and the stirring of emotions through our home audio systems (At least that's my objective). Newer audio technology  may certainly have the potential to achieve this goal. Time and listening will tell. 

I just do not buy the idea that by virtue of being the next new thing it  by default is superior to what already exists and is performance proven. I've heard the VAC Renaissance amplifiers and know it is quite capable of providing a highly emotionally engaging music listening experience. High NFB solid state may or may not. Actually listening is the true arbiter for better or worse. 

Charles 

 New is not necessarily better. Remember that it is promoted that way by the audio media to help perpetuate the hobby. That's a fact all hobbies go through fads and it gets promoted that you need this not what we told you ten years ago. Get rid of your old stuff buy new! I love currently the idea of stereo pieces that have upper end sparkle. I have listened to some of the pieces that are written about in that way and thirty years ago things like that were called bright! And we're to be avoided. Now it seems like bright is being promoted is that because the average audiofile has gotten older as the hobby doesn't seems to attract the you g anymore and us old audiofiles are losing our high frequency hearing? That's something to ponder. You see the exact same thing going on in hunting magazines the rifle calibres they promote now compared to the past. All hobbies have this promotion directly for sales. 

 

The other thing I would ask the original posted are you sure when you send your amp back to be modified it will be better? You might get a surprise and that you don't like the changes. Be careful. 

 

 

Regards

so you are ditching everything you have espoused (if not self-promoted) on this forum for twenty years in order to go all-in to self-promote your new Class D amps.

Wow. Did you see me promoting our class D amps here? I simply stated the underlying engineering issue that any designer faces if they wish to advance the art.

I'm not stating anything in conflict with anything I've stated before. You'll notice that our OTLs are zero feedback- that was done because applying enough feedback to avoid brightness and harshness was never possible. Personally, I find harshness and brightness to be the biggest sin audio can commit. So they are zero feedback, class A(2), a single stage of gain, all triode, fully differential and balanced from input to output, and output transformerless. This was done to eliminate as many distortion sources as possible. It worked- the OTLs have dramatically lower distortion than any SET, are obviously more transparent on that account and have garnered a lot of nice reviews and awards in the high end press. So we know they work, as if our ears weren't telling us that:

Precisely my point , use your ears and decide. If you genuinely believe that the new betters the older alternatives then case closed as far as you’re concerned, I get it.

 

Let’s simplify negative feedback = taking something ( the AC audio signal aka music ) that has ALREADY happened, flip it around out of phase ( that’s the negative part ) and feed it back into the input where something new and unequal is happening ( unless you think sine ways are music )… then apply some critical thinking….