Objectively superior aspects of old technology

[xykreinov]

In the audio world, we are blessed with very consistent improvements across many areas of sound technology. Apples to apples, many trained ears don't feel too much fondness for equipment of old. As epic as classic Altec Lansing studio monitors are, as soothing the glow of a tube encapsulated in acres of 70s hifi amp steel, as engaging as big vinyl saucers can be; the blind man will almost always choose a pair of Revel towers paired to a Benchmark amp and MiniDSP. Well, so long as someone narrates to him the lower distortion figures. :^)

However, this truly well rounded technical superiority of modern design is not as pronounced with lots of other media tech.

I used a once high end CRT monitor for a while last summer; its black levels and motion clarity really are awesome. After over two decades, there are still very few displays on the market that can have as low black levels, as low response times, and as low input lag all at once. OLEDs are finally starting to have that magic three. But, the fact that it's taken this long is crazy.

Are there any fields of old tech, audio or otherwise, you don't just feel nostalgia for, but actually see tangible advantages in?

 

[GXAlan]

1) Fully automatic turntables.
In the 70’s and 80’s you had premium audiophile turntables with fully automatic cueing and lift off. Today, it’s hard to find a high end turntable with even automatic lift off. Surely, it’s possible to design something where the electronics are transparent to the sound. I think Technics and TEAC have auto lift on some of their models but fully automatic is only on lower end turntables.

2) Oscilloscopes on gear/Diagnostic Modes/tone controls
My old McIntosh Mi-3 and JBL SA600 have mechanisms to help you configure the balance of your audio in case there was any imbalance between the left and right channels. Tone controls are great for older music or poorly mastered music. As people focused on transparency, no one stopped to ask “why don’t we make tone controls that can be transparent when desired?” Instead of removing it completely? The LOUDNESS compensation is a good example of this. That’s driven by science yet we don’t see that in high end audio.

Transparency was still valued but individualizing the audio experience was also encouraged. We have too much polarization in the world today where differences of opinion are ostracized.

Along those same lines, older gear used to include measurements and other graphs with their info. Take a look at the Marantz PM-90 specifications compared to today. They talk about bandwidth, power, etc when quantifying THD.

3) Price. Adjust for inflation and it’s pretty clear that high end audio has only gotten crazier and crazier with pricing. In the 2000’s, something like the Sennheisser HD600 would have been the most expensive headphone on the market and when the HD800 came out, people though the pricing was insane. Everything has gotten more expensive !

4) Craftsmanship. We have turntables amplifiers from the 1960s which are still working well. Meanwhile CD/SACD players from 20 years ago are dying with repair impossible. From the standpoint of being mindful of Earth’s resources, it is better when our gear isn’t designed to be disposable.

Classic gear had beautiful wood cases which required good engineering to control heat and added an element of again, craftsmanship. Given the style of the era, vintage gear fits into home decor better. Given today’s home decor, we are not seeing much in the way of audio companies trying to help electronics fit into the decor. That is 1960’s electronic gear has a mid century modern look to it. 1980’s gear has a 1980’s look to it. Except for maybe the Marantz SACD 30n/Model 30 which is polarizing in looks but at least makes an attempt, most gear today still has the industrial or 1980s look to it, at least in the under $5K range.

 

[anmpr1]

Are there any fields of old tech you don't just feel nostalgia for, but actually see tangible advantages in?

Probably not. For me it's mostly nostalgia. That said, the 'old' gear was generally nicer in the looks department. And lot of it was built to last whereas much of the stuff today is throw-away, and then get something newer, cheaper. I still have gear from my early days, gear that runs like new. I'm happy to have lived through that time, and witnessed the transition.

In my den/home gym are JBL L100 I've carried with me since I bought them, in Winter Park Fl, 1975. That store is long gone, but my speakers are still functional. L100 are laughable in today's loudspeaker scene, but they mean a lot to me.

Got them sitting on a wood floor, commando style. To make them listenable to my ears I've had to turn the 'presence' and 'brilliance' down a notch, and use digital EQ in order to remove the Maxell 'blown away' effect (gradually sloping down beginning at 500 Hz to -5dB at 32Hz) . I usually listen off-axis when using my PC, and in front, above axis, when using my work-out bike. Love the '70s sonic vibe. Love it. Wouldn't trade for any of the small two-way desk top Klippelized wunderkinds you read about here. But that's just me.

L100 play through home built Dyna mono amps, and a more modern home built PAS 'style' preamp (new boards and components). Home built gear was common when I started in the hobby. Now it's not much of a thing. It's cheaper to stamp something out at a factory in Shenzhen than it is to package parts and a chassis and sell it to a consumer. And in any case, how is the average cat with a soldering iron going to build a DAC3 HGC, or a Topping, even if he had the parts?

Record player has a lot of cartridges I've collected over the years--lately using an Ortofon Concorde Pro S (ball point pen stylus) tracking at 4 grams! Why? Does Furtwangler care? Besides, I can't (or won't) afford an SPU tracking at 4 grams. I'm waiting for Shure to get back in the game, or for Denon to make another 103D. Probably die before that happens. Probably never happen.

Digits provided by a PC/Cambridge Audio 'magic' DAC combo. So it's old and new. And for those still wondering, yes, digits 'sound' better than plastic LPs. But I'm not selling my records.

In my main system there's a Garrard Z-100 from 1972 running strong, featuring a Benchmark DAC3 preamp/AHB-2 running a set of Paul Klipsch La Scala II. I enjoy the sonic presentation of these 'ancient' refrigerator sized horns, but I know I'm in a minority.

Aesthetically, I wish my Benchmark set looked like a mid '70s Pioneer integrated with walnut wood sleeve. But you have to take what you can get, and the only thing approaching the look and feel of those '70s amps are from Accuphase, Lux, and possibly Yamaha. And they are not as good as Benchmark, electrically. Even as they often sell for a lot more money. Nothing made in Japan is affordable, anymore.

Some could think my combination of old and new is odd, but I suspect that Benchmark would be the amp Paul would have owned, if it had been available back then. And if his Brook ever bit the dust.

 

[Sashoir]

In purely technological terms, I'd say that software engineering quality is the biggest area of deterioration: don't mistake me, modern software is often well-written, but people who cut their teeth in environments of very limited capacity, and without the bells and whistles of modern IDEs, in my limited experience and subjective opinion, write better code. Much like people who learned to read and write in the analogue domain are better at spelling and grammar (also in my limited experience and unregenerate normative opinion).
In respect of sound reproduction, I only miss quality of workmanship. My first stereo, purchased in the mid 1990s, is still going strong (and sounds great to me) at my little brother's flat, with one phonograph belt change, some new valves on the power amplifier, and maybe a new stylus or two over the past quarter century. I've never been an upgrader, but I've replaced nearly every component, especially wire connectors (they seem to bend like butter now) of my stereo in the past few years because the repair is more costly (in time or money) than a new item (which is stupid even if one isn't a greenie, and insane if one is).

 

[Apesbrain]

Cars once had CD players.

 

[levimax]

While the technology of recording equipment has advanced by leaps and bounds it appears to me that recording techniques have regressed to the point where older recordings can actually have objectively better quality such as more dynamic range. Subjectively for me recording techniques seemed to have peaked in the late 1980's or early 1990's and now with the goal being an ever louder and more compressed sound to stand out I find many recordings from the late 1950's and early 1960's to actually sound better than new ones which is insane considering the recording technology available 60 years ago.

 

[xykreinov]

While the technology of recording equipment has advanced by leaps and bounds it appears to me that recording techniques have regressed to the point where older recordings can actually have objectively better quality such as more dynamic range. Subjectively for me recording techniques seemed to have peaked in the late 1980's or early 1990's and now with the goal being an ever louder and more compressed sound to stand out I find many recordings from the late 1950's and early 1960's to actually sound better than new ones which is insane considering the recording technology available 60 years ago.

Totally agree. Change is inevitable, but loss of vision is not.

 

[dfuller]

While the technology of recording equipment has advanced by leaps and bounds it appears to me that recording techniques have regressed to the point where older recordings can actually have objectively better quality such as more dynamic range. Subjectively for me recording techniques seemed to have peaked in the late 1980's or early 1990's and now with the goal being an ever louder and more compressed sound to stand out I find many recordings from the late 1950's and early 1960's to actually sound better than new ones which is insane considering the recording technology available 60 years ago.

This has a lot to do with budgets for records falling through the floor. The music industry made money on top of money on top of money through the late 90s - and then the internet happened.

 

[mmi]

Daguerreotypes, the first publicly available photography process, are a better technology purely in terms of detail and resolution than any analogue or digital process since:

"Fontayne and Porter were definitely skilled, but no one knew just how amazing their images were until three years ago, when conservators at George Eastman House in Rochester, New York, began restoration work on the deteriorating plates. Magnifying glasses didn’t exhaust their detail; neither did an ultrasharp macro lens. Finally, the conservators deployed a stereo microscope. What they saw astonished them: The details — down to window curtains and wheel spokes — remained crisp even at 30X magnification. The panorama could be blown up to 170 by 20 feet without losing clarity; a digicam would have to record 140,000 megapixels per shot to match that."

Wired article from wikipedia citation

 

[H-713]

Lifespan, reparability (In most cases) and very often cosmetics.

 

[FrantzM]

Daguerreotypes, the first publicly available photography process, are a better technology purely in terms of detail and resolution than any analogue or digital process since:

"Fontayne and Porter were definitely skilled, but no one knew just how amazing their images were until three years ago, when conservators at George Eastman House in Rochester, New York, began restoration work on the deteriorating plates. Magnifying glasses didn’t exhaust their detail; neither did an ultrasharp macro lens. Finally, the conservators deployed a stereo microscope. What they saw astonished them: The details — down to window curtains and wheel spokes — remained crisp even at 30X magnification. The panorama could be blown up to 170 by 20 feet without losing clarity; a digicam would have to record 140,000 megapixels per shot to match that."

Wired article from wikipedia citation

Well ... Not exactly .. read this exchange

 

[ZolaIII]

Well ... Not exactly .. read this exchange

Some things will survive even after atomic dawn or severe solar blast (which ever comes first); Cockroaches, tubes, some Zilog's and 2N's to name some but I know to use them because I love them not because I whose preparing for apocalypse.

 

[rdenney]

In the audio world, we are blessed with very consistent improvements across many areas of sound technology. Apples to apples, many trained ears don't feel too much fondness for equipment of old. As epic as classic Altec Lansing studio monitors are, as soothing the glow of a tube encapsulated in acres of 70s hifi amp steel, as engaging as big vinyl saucers can be; the blind man will almost always choose a pair of Revel towers paired to a Benchmark amp and MiniDSP. Well, so long as someone narrates to him the lower distortion figures. :^)

However, this truly well rounded technical superiority of modern design is not as pronounced with lots of other media tech.

I used a once high end CRT monitor for a while last summer; its black levels and motion clarity really are awesome. After over two decades, there are still very few displays on the market that can have as low black levels, as low response times, and as low input lag all at once. OLEDs are finally starting to have that magic three. But, the fact that it's taken this long is crazy.

Are there any fields of old tech, audio or otherwise, you don't just feel nostalgia for, but actually see tangible advantages in?

Plasma displays. I needed better HDMI switching on my low-end TV system, so I bought a new QLED Samsung TV to replace our old lower-line Maxent plasma display. After wrestling that 120-pound Maxent off its roost and lightly placing the new one in its place, we watched it for about two hours. Then, we boxed it up and took it back to the store. Off-axis viewing was dreadful, color depth muted, black levels were gray, and contrast was poor. When I'm ready to replace the plasma display again, I'll get an OLED, which may be as good as plasma. They are far more expensive. In the meantime, I solved the switching problem by getting a newer AVR (a recent Yamaha, bought used on ebay, which as been fine).

Rick "don't need 4K, let alone 8K" Denney

 

[rdenney]

Daguerreotypes, the first publicly available photography process, are a better technology purely in terms of detail and resolution than any analogue or digital process since:

"Fontayne and Porter were definitely skilled, but no one knew just how amazing their images were until three years ago, when conservators at George Eastman House in Rochester, New York, began restoration work on the deteriorating plates. Magnifying glasses didn’t exhaust their detail; neither did an ultrasharp macro lens. Finally, the conservators deployed a stereo microscope. What they saw astonished them: The details — down to window curtains and wheel spokes — remained crisp even at 30X magnification. The panorama could be blown up to 170 by 20 feet without losing clarity; a digicam would have to record 140,000 megapixels per shot to match that."

Wired article from wikipedia citation

Okay, there's the article. But I'm calling BS on it. The lenses they had were no better than the lenses currently in use, and in many ways they were far worse. And then there's diffraction, which limits sharpness even with a perfect lens.

Edit: Read the "exchange". So, they were using whole plate (a standard size, 6-1/2 by 8-1/2). Modern lenses are capable of making use of a 100-MP 44x33mm sensor. Scaled up to whole plate, that's 1800 megapixels, roughly, or 1.8 gigapixels. The largest digital image I've worked with used the equivalent of 5x7 format scanned at 4000 pixels/inch, which comes to about 560 megapixels. Drum scanning could have gotten 6000 pixels/inch from that film (and the lens I used could have kept up with that, too), which would come to 1.26 gigapixels. Scaled up to whole plate size, that would be pushing 2 gigapixels--roughly corresponding to the best modern digital sensors and lenses--but somewhat less than the 140 claimed. So, what's a couple of orders of magnitude between friends? In the case of the Dageurreotype, however, the observers in the subsequently linked exchange only 30 megapixels of information on the whole plate are was represented in the example provided for scrutiny online. That also sounds about right to me.

Rick "with some expertise in this area" Denney

 

[JRS]

Cars once had CD players.

With magazines and changer.

 

[JRS]

Plasma displays. I needed better HDMI switching on my low-end TV system, so I bought a new QLED Samsung TV to replace our old lower-line Maxent plasma display. After wrestling that 120-pound Maxent off its roost and lightly placing the new one in its place, we watched it for about two hours. Then, we boxed it up and took it back to the store. Off-axis viewing was dreadful, color depth muted, black levels were gray, and contrast was poor. When I'm ready to replace the plasma display again, I'll get an OLED, which may be as good as plasma. They are far more expensive. In the meantime, I solved the switching problem by getting a newer AVR (a recent Yamaha, bought used on ebay, which as been fine).

Rick "don't need 4K, let alone 8K" Denney

The OLED's blow away any plasma I have seen or owned. For one, the blacks are absolutely pitch black as in no way to know if's on. I mean not even a hint of a ghost, just dead solid black. Mine is hung and projects off a wall and I kid you not, bumped my head when I had to walk past it to get to my rack. Colors aren't perfect on my LG but so eye popping and vivid when called for, it's a bit better than lifelike.

Enjoy. For me, it was even more of a jump than analog to digital audio because of the infinite dynamic range.

 

[Frank Dernie]

With magazines and changer.

I miss them.
My current car links to my phone but the volume control is all wrong, it can take a USB stick but goodness knows how to sort a file system which gives a usable index, depending where the files came from it either is or isn't completely ridiculous.

I don't bother using it any more, it is so irritating, so I am stuck with the radio now.

I wouldn't pay a penny for any of the car entertainment system interfaces I have seen for years.

 

[hex168]

Bell System telephone system. Cell phones are wonderful computers but voice quality for calls, more often than not, is godawful.

 

[JRS]

My theory is this--there is a critical period in adolescence when we "imprint" on gear and bands. They will always remain closest to heart, and figure prominently on my deathbed playlist (everyone should have one just as a will). Of course one is usually cash strapped and will lust after a few reference items--for me it was the Infinity Servostatic speaker, a Shure SME tone arm, and MacIntosh power amps, Marantz preamp. (I forget the tuner and TT, no interest in either). So when one grows up and gets real $$, he wats to own these audio idols from teenage years. Theres enough of a market to sustai the old tech for maybe three generations and then forgotten. Anyhow that's my story and sticking with it.

 

[elvisizer]

When I'm ready to replace the plasma display again, I'll get an OLED, which may be as good as plasma.

i went from a last-model panny plasma to the cx LG oled's and I'm ok with it. OLED doesn't handle motion as well as plasma, but i think in the end that's a fair trade off for the higher resolution, HDR output, and increased image retention resistance