2. misc-audio
  3. 1408481799

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 The consensus answer to the former is usually yes, the equipment is obsolete.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
Ag insider logo xs@2x
islandmandan
1,260 posts
 
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
zd542
5,339 posts
 
"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.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,210 posts
 
Turntables are one thing that one will likely pay a premium for these days if bought new compared to vintage models. That's of course because records used to be everywhere and there was lots of decent quality gear to play them on. I suspct the best (and quite pricey) tables out there today may incorporate useful technical advances, but teh market will dictate paying a premium. I would personally think twice before buying a new turntable. There are still some good affordable cart options out there though. Same true for phono amps. Some vinyl lovers who have heard it all still prefer certain high quality vintage gear, properly maintained, restored or even enhanced.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,210 posts
 
"The idea being, even though the picture is old, you'll still benefit from viewing it through a new window. "

Sounds right. The new window will deliver more benefit for everything. But in the case of the old photo, it may be good enough to appreciate, but if one views it through the inferior window, that may no longer be the case. Whereas, the sharp new high quality picture might still be appreciated through old, and will also shine its best through new.

In any case, I tend to disagree with those that might shy away from better, more resolving gear, for fear that it will reveal flaws in bad recordings. It will reveal EVRYTHING, not just the flaws. The source material is what it is, but that's no reason to compromise it further and have less chance of enjoying.
almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
I'm not quite sure what Marty (Viridian) meant, but in any event I don't see how the analogy is relevant. The recordings in question, that were referred to as "touchstones" in the OP, are widely considered by those familiar with them to be sonically exceptional, as measured against today's standards as well as the standards of their time. I don't think anyone would say that about a late 1800s photograph, unless perhaps artistry rather than realism were the criterion.

Best regards,
-- Al
More to discover