Older Amplifiers Better?

[EJ3]

where they ever built in the UK? I think they were always made by an OEM in Taiwan, up to the 1990s at least. Pretty sure it was never Japan.

The designs where developed in the UK (maybe only prototypes where made there) I have 6 NAD 2200' that were built in Japan, 2 of them are dual voltage models.
I have seen 2200's that were built in South Korea & Taiwan (there was a lot going on between NAD & PROTON for a while).
I have also heard of NAD units being built in Malaysia.
I just went & checked my NAD 4300 AM/FM tuner also says made in Japan.
So all of my NAD gear is made in Japan.

 

[Mart68]

The designs where developed in the UK (maybe only prototypes where made there) I have 6 NAD 2200' that were built in Japan, 2 of them are dual voltage models.
I have seen 2200's that were built in South Korea & Taiwan (there was a lot going on between NAD & PROTON for a while).
I have also heard of NAD units being built in Malaysia.
I just went & checked my NAD 4300 AM/FM tuner also says made in Japan.
So all of my NAD gear is made in Japan.

I've never seen a made in Japan one so I've learnt something. Maybe we never got that production run in the UK?

I think the one I have says made in Malaysia but it's from about 2001. I think Proton were made by the same OEM in Taiwan, hence the crossover.

 

[egellings]

I don't believe there has been a ruling that older amplifier sound quality is generally better than the newer ones. And I'm not sure who would make that ruling!

What has changed in recent decades is the ability to cheaply, quickly and quite accurately model designs in software and run "what if" queries to determine the benefit or otherwise of a design. This includes multilayer boards with surface mount components and complex and effective ground-planes. One of the key benefits is that low-noise designs are common and cheap and that is not necessarily the case with older designs.

What is not the case is that all older amplifiers are audibly worse than modern amplifiers. There are some older amplifiers which were designed with excellent voltage and current delivery, low noise and low distortion with flat frequency response. If they are in good condition (which may require refurbishment), these should be audibly indistinguishable from a recent equivalent when levels are matched. The only problem is, I don't know which older amplifiers fit this description.

The older amplifiers, especially vacuum tube ones, may have worse specs than new class D ones, but the particular deviations of the tube amp from sonic perfection may have a euphonic sound quality that some listeners prefer. And the tube stuff can be designed to have good specifications, good enough so that improvements made to them would not be audible. That begs the question of, why tubes?, if they are sonically transparent. It's like the dog owner who loves his little puppy, even if it occasionally piddles on the carpet.

 

[EJ3]

Prices can be better on some overlooked items, notwithstanding refurb costs. I lucked into an old ca. 1990 AB International for $100 that had been completely rebuilt - new paste on the outputs, 100% operational and better than spec. If you're willing to accept the "(in)audible differences" between -80db and -120db SINAD (I am), I will always go vintage. Usually. LOL.

I sought out the AB because it is reputed to have roots in Leach/Ottala design philosophy (low feedback, low TIM). And it works. Very well. I could buy 6 of these for the same price as a similarly powered modern class D and not suffer for lack of playback quality. Probably.

I accept it because I believe(that if it is, in fact quite good (and if it is not, why did you get it in the first place?) in actually recycling, refurbishing, reusing, repurposing to actually reduce the trashing.
It's also why I drive a 200,000 mile 2004 Chevy Silverado truck (that I bought last year with 190,000 miles on it, that will likely need a transmission at some point between now & 240,000, but the engine has a high probability of taking it to 400,000+. (I recently gave away my 2000 Nissan Truck to flood victims that lost their vehicle when it washed away from their home {with 200,000 miles on it, it should easily make 300,000}).
My 1988 NAD tested to 95 SINAD after refurbishment, 18 bits of dynamic range, I certainly cannot hear better than that, so, it was great when originally purchased and it's quit good now. Why replace it?

 

[Old_School_Brad]

I accept it because I believe(that if it is, in fact quite good (and if it is not, why did you get it in the first place?) in actually recycling, refurbishing, reusing, repurposing to actually reduce the trashing.
It's also why I drive a 200,000 mile 2004 Chevy Silverado truck (that I bought last year with 190,000 miles on it, that will likely need a transmission at some point between now & 240,000, but the engine has a high probability of taking it to 400,000+. (I recently gave away my 2000 Nissan Truck to flood victims that lost their vehicle when it washed away from their home {with 200,000 miles on it, it should easily make 300,000}).
My 1988 NAD tested to 95 SINAD after refurbishment, 18 bits of dynamic range, I certainly cannot hear better than that, so, it was great when originally purchased and it's quit good now. Why replace it?

I really like that line of thinking, and I completely agree. In fact, purchasing new gear -often not built to the same long-lasting standards as something like your 1988 NAD -could arguably have a bigger environmental impact than simply maintaining and using the old one.

I believe that, eventually, we’ll have no choice but to move away from this disposable culture we've been cultivating.