Is It Ironic?


There's a type of thread on Audiogon where somewhere asks "is this piece of equipment obsolete?" Or a similar type of thread where the question is "has there been progress in some equipment category since" some arbitrary date. The consensus answer to the former is usually yes, the equipment is obsolete. That's even when the equipment in question is only ten years old. The consensus to the latter question is always that there's been significant progress in equipment. Digital is better, loudspeakers are better, amps are better, cables are better, etc. What I find ironic is that much of the music used to ascertain the improvements in equipment was recorded fifty years ago. The touchstone recordings by RCA, Mercury, Columbia, Decca and Blue Note were made with equipment that was being retired as obsolete when Brian Jones was the guitar player with the Rolling Stones. We're using newer and newer equipment to find out that old recordings made with "antique" equipment actually sounds really good. Ironic?
128x128onhwy61
Great point, Onhwy61, and yes, it certainly is ironic.

There are certainly a multitude of factors that are involved. When it comes to classical music, at least, I suppose the most significant factor is not related to equipment quality per se, but to how it is used. When the classic RCAs, Mercurys, Deccas, etc. were recorded, a minimal number of well placed microphones were used, and the signals they provided were minimally and simply processed. Today the norm, especially for symphonic recordings, seems to be the use of a forest of microphones, placed too close to the performers, and for their outputs to be heavily processed with elaborate consoles that are adjusted by misguided, artistically insensitive, and/or incompetent engineers.

That said, I'll also particularly second the response by John (Jmcgrogan2). Having fairly extensive experience with vintage tube gear of the 1950s and 60s I can say that many of those pieces from the better manufacturers of the day, if well restored and/or in top condition, and if suitably matched to the associated components in the system, as a general rule of thumb will easily be competitive with modern gear selling at comparable price points. (I'm referring to the present day selling prices of both the vintage and modern equipment).

I'll say also that it is not just collectibility and rarity that drives the present day value of vintage Marantz tube gear, Tannoy speaker drivers, Brook amplifiers, REL tuners (no relation to the British subwoofer manufacturer), etc. Nor are those the only reasons for the values of 1930s(!) Western Electric speaker drivers, amplifiers, and tubes, which in some cases approach the astronomical. (And one of our most highly experienced and knowledgeable contributors here, btw, whose system is definitely in the upper echelons price-wise, makes very extensive use in his system of some of that 1930s Western Electric equipment).

One final point, which Ralph (Atmasphere) has made in the past, and which I think is very valid. Those classic recordings were made many years before expensive audiophile-oriented cables came into being. And the cabling used in the halls in which many of those recordings were made approached perhaps as much as 200 feet in length. And most cable effects are proportional to length. So how could the recordings be so good? Because those cables were balanced AND were driven from low impedance outputs having very hefty drive capability. Which Ralph has asserted (and it makes sense to me) results in cable effects and cable differences being essentially (and perhaps entirely) negated.

Best regards,
-- Al
Post removed 
Nice analogy Viridian!

Chances are the OLDER photograph would be less resolved and the harder of the two to discern information from accordingly and would up the ante in terms of what is needed to get good results.
Being an audiophile with a limited budget, I could't afford what it would take to achieve the sound quality I wanted, even buying used.

Tannoy HPD's from 1975, and a restored Garrard 401, has enabled me to have the level of pleasureable listening I was after all along. I couldn't have done it buying new.

In comparison with systems comprised of newer equipment, the old stuff holds its own, and then some.

Regards,
Dan
"08-20-14: Mapman
Nice analogy Viridian!

Chances are the OLDER photograph would be less resolved and the harder of the two to discern information from accordingly and would up the ante in terms of what is needed to get good results."

I'm not sure that's what Viridian's meant. I got something else from reading it. I think he meant to say that if you look at an old photo, you should still use a new window that is clear, and not some old one. The idea being, even though the picture is old, you'll still benefit from viewing it through a new window. Anyway, I think that's what he meant.