Older Amplifiers Better?

[oleg87]

Internet discourse about things "sounding better" is not really worth paying any mind to. Objectively, old amps can be just fine if they've been maintained as necessary - and they will likely need some maintenance by now - but it would take some pretty heavy iron to deliver as much clean power as a compact, light class D amp can deliver. My wife doesn't really share my taste for big heavy boxes in our living room.

 

[Chrispy]

My 40 year old amp experience varies....one simply went up in smoke, a second developed a buzzing transformer, the third is still fine. They all have vu meters which I got bored with in short order. My newer amps have been trouble free otoh so far. Nostalgia sometimes gets in ones eyes I suppose.

 

[Sokel]

We also have to define what's old and new.
A Yamaha AS701 for example is the same for 30 years as an amp excluding its digital stuff.And it's still just fine.
An old 30 yo one I bought back then has taken turns to family members all these years and no one complained (still works) .

So it's not an old amp we're talking about probably,what we want to say is old tech or old way of doing things.

 

[restorer-john]

The OP asks about "sound quality". That means perceivable (by a human set of ears), differences between older amplifiers and new amplifiers.

In general, well designed high fidelity amplifiers have been virtually indistinguishable in listening tests, from one another, for at least 50 years. That is, similarly capable products. Apples to apples comparisons. No point picking a $100 Fosi and comparing it to a TOTL Accuphase is there?

Of course we can measure differences between all amplifiers, no two will exhibit identical performance, but it comes down to where you want to draw a line and say you've reached your own personal nirvana. For some people, it's a constant journey, others are satisfied at step one. I climbed my own personal audiophile ladder with new gear, while at the same time picking up and restoring gear others had cast aside, traded-in or otherwise passed on. Back then, I had to buy the best gear new to outperform the restored middle of the range gear from 20 years earlier.

For me, there's no current model amplifier from any manufacturer I'm itching to buy. Not even one. But if I saw a vintage classic at a garage sale sitting unloved in a dusty corner, it'd come home with me. But my passion is not just the "sound quality", it is the build.

For someone starting in HiFi today, I'd advise not going down the vintage path. Much of it is now reaching the age where it's not just components that need replacing, it's cosmetic, structural and otherwise difficult to obtain parts you will need to find. If you like ongoing projects, sure, go for it, but if you want simple plug, play and forget buy new.

 

[Chrispy]

The OP asks about "sound quality". That means perceivable (by a human set of ears), differences between older amplifiers and new amplifiers.

In general, well designed high fidelity amplifiers have been virtually indistinguishable in listening tests, from one another, for at least 50 years. That is, similarly capable products. Apples to apples comparisons. No point picking a $100 Fosi and comparing it to a TOTL Accuphase is there?

Of course we can measure differences between all amplifiers, no two will exhibit identical performance, but it comes down to where you want to draw a line and say you've reached your own personal nirvana. For some people, it's a constant journey, others are satisfied at step one. I climbed my own personal audiophile ladder with new gear, while at the same time picking up and restoring gear others had cast aside, traded-in or otherwise passed on. Back then, I had to buy the best gear new to outperform the restored middle of the range gear from 20 years earlier.

For me, there's no current model amplifier from any manufacturer I'm itching to buy. Not even one. But if I saw a vintage classic at a garage sale sitting unloved in a dusty corner, it'd come home with me. But my passion is not just the "sound quality", it is the build

For someone starting in HiFi today, I'd advise not going down the vintage path. Much of it is now reaching the age where it's not just components that need replacing, it's cosmetic, structural and otherwise difficult to obtain parts you will need to find. If you like ongoing projects, sure, go for it, but if you want simple plug, play and forget buy new.

You can also repair/analyze such, too, though....

 

[mhardy6647]

Older amplifiers better?
naaaahhhh.
just more fun.
hamingredient pano 14Apr2019 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

 

[MRC01]

... For me, there's no current model amplifier from any manufacturer I'm itching to buy. Not even one. But if I saw a vintage classic at a garage sale sitting unloved in a dusty corner, it'd come home with me. But my passion is not just the "sound quality", it is the build. ...

There is one key difference that may be relevant: how long can the amplifier sustain its rated "continuous" power? Some amplifiers cannot sustain it for more than a minute or two (or even less), making one wonder what the word "continuous" really means. Others can. The difference is all about amp efficiency and heat dissipation. Modern class D would seem to have the advantage, being more efficient with less heat to dissipate. But they are consequently lighter with less capability to dissipate heat. Similarly, I believe that the temperature actuated cooling fans in my Adcom 5800 are one reason it still tests and functions like new after 30 years of daily use.

Of course, this is not necessarily a vintage vs. new distinction. Just an important factor to consider.

There's a long discussion about this in another thread here, related to new standards published by the US FTC: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...24-requirements-on-output-power-claims.58972/

 

[restorer-john]

I'm keeping the continuous power technical discussion out of this thread, as the OP asked about "sound quality".

It's a whole other can of worms that has been beaten to death. (although canned worms should be already dead, you'd think)

 

[mhardy6647]

It's a whole other can of worms that has been beaten to death. (although canned worms should be already dead, you'd think)

An Internet Hall of Fame - worthy quotation, right there!

 

[MRC01]

It's a whole other can of worms that has been beaten to death. (although canned worms should be already dead, you'd think)

If the can is labeled "fresh bait", they should still be alive

 

[EJ3]

If the can is labeled "fresh bait", they should still be alive

Maybe they are just "dormant" until they get oxygen again?

 

[rcstevensonaz]

Older amplifiers better?
naaaahhhh.
just more fun.
hamingredient pano 14Apr2019 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

That is fantastic. Ever thought of setting up rack audio / power distribution panels so that you could easily swap between the various amps?

 

[jooe]

I miss the features of older gear. Tone controls, loudness, etc. Always prefer my Kenwood KA-7300 over my Topping La90.

 

[Mnyb]

I am curious to find out if there has been a “ruling”, study or conclusion that older amplifiers sound quality is generally better than the newer ones? (Not talking reliability)

I see comments every now and then about how good a 30 or 40 years old amplifier sounds and is much better than current models. Hasn’t there been design developments over the years that would have improved sound quality?

I, for one, like the look of some of the older amplifiers and their nice looking VU meters but that’s very superficial (and subjective ). And does not help the sound quality. ‍‍

Any thoughts or source of info (testing) on this matter?

They can be equal given that they both surpass human hearing capacity and if both a new and old amp can handle the workload .

They are differently made for a variety of reasons both technical cultural and society have moved on .
An old amp is nice collector item and if it's one of the good ones it could be your hifi centerpiece ( we tend to forget that it has always been crap products , but nostalgia makes everything good ) .

But most people these days don't buy amps preamp or DAC's it's a commodity chip inside their little active speaker and it suits them fine . In the 70's they had to buy a component stereo ( not to expensive ) and shoved one speaker into the bookshelf and the other one in a corner behind a chair or something

 

[restorer-john]

Maybe they are just "dormant" until they get oxygen again?

Sea monkeys!

 

[Old_School_Brad]

I am curious to find out if there has been a “ruling”, study or conclusion that older amplifiers sound quality is generally better than the newer ones? (Not talking reliability)

I see comments every now and then about how good a 30 or 40 years old amplifier sounds and is much better than current models. Hasn’t there been design developments over the years that would have improved sound quality?

I, for one, like the look of some of the older amplifiers and their nice looking VU meters but that’s very superficial (and subjective ). And does not help the sound quality. ‍‍

Any thoughts or source of info (testing) on this matter?

Sound quality? – Not necessarily any difference.

Have newer designs improved sound quality? – Not really. Amplifiers from the 70s and 80s were already capable of producing transparent signals.

If you’re not looking to discuss reliability, design, thermal performance, or differences in specification ratings, those are my answers.

 

[ahofer]

For folks of a certain age (like me) the older stuff fed our sighted bias a lot better. But sound quality? Nah.

And I’ve moved on. My current aesthetic is “invisible”.

 

[Mnyb]

Sound quality? – Not necessarily any difference.

Have newer designs improved sound quality? – Not really. Amplifiers from the 70s and 80s were already capable of producing transparent signals.

If you’re not looking to discuss reliability, design, thermal performance, or differences in specification ratings, those are my answers.

Possibly noise performance 70's 80's everything hissed 90's not so much .
In the old bad days gain structure was all over the place ?

Even new products can offer bad noise performance some of the cheaper active speakers of today hiss

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Possibly noise performance 70's 80's everything hissed 90's not so much .
In the old bad days gain structure was all over the place ?

Even new products can offer bad noise performance some of the cheaper active speakers of today hiss

I’d say we haven’t made much progress in terms of gain structure -in fact, we’ve probably taken a step backward. These days, it’s not uncommon to see amplifiers being tested that require significantly higher input voltage than years back, essentially inflating the dynamic range in comparison.

 

[Mnyb]

I’d say we haven’t made much progress in terms of gain structure -in fact, we’ve probably taken a step backward. These days, it’s not uncommon to see amplifiers being tested that require significantly higher input voltage than years back, essentially inflating the dynamic range in comparison.

My experience i s to much gain everywhere ? often resorting to inline attenuators when for example power amps lack gain settings ? rarely passing half the volume knob in most older amps . I think lower gain and higher output from sources are a workable solution . But amps should have gain settings to fit in an HT or with a very hot DAC or preamp .

Was it not 100mV that was typical output levels in the 1970's ? Can not been easy for manufacturers when people had some old cassette decks and tuners and a VHS , and then added the new shiny CD player with 2.0v out ?

So I always experienced to sensitive power amps and preamps with unusable levels of gain ( you want to use the pot in it's most linear range for channel balance ), unless with a very quite phono cart ? Or integrated where this was true