• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Older Amplifiers Better?

I liked what NAD did here (C 3050), (...)

I don't. Quite costly and retro look, but meagre feature-set on the analogue side (just one line-in, no mono button, no switchable subsonic filter, no record-out at all (let alone a classic tape-loop with monitoring function...). Rather disappointing... *sigh*

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini
 
I don't. Quite costly and retro look, but meagre feature-set on the analogue side (just one line-in, no mono button, no switchable subsonic filter, no record-out at all (let alone a classic tape-loop with monitoring function...). Rather disappointing... *sigh*

There will never be a single device that addresses all our collective needs... :) The reason I never considered it is mainly the waste of cost on a phono in. I am all digital these days. Also, the fact the sub out is not configurable would be a huge step back for me. My early-90s (in storage) Luxman has stereo pre-out that's more versatile than what this product offers... :-/
 
old stuff put the 'logic' in pro-logic
can't even play quad records anymore without unobtanium. it's not like it'd be hard by today's standards for a phono stage to support all 4 quad formats how long has it been anyway? there's a few b-format records out there too... would be nice to simply have access to the formats because it's more accessible, anyone can make quad multichannel quite easily... analog blumlein recordings sound great in quad. but you gotta use computers and make everything dolby or dts there's no option for live multichannel other than headphones that isn't some primordial ratking of mackies.. all you could possibly do these days is high sample rate stereo tracks and expect people to matrix it out themselves. again, you're stuck with dolby surround & everybody thinks sample rate doesn't matter. kinda does when you're crossing the streams. you play around with old stuff for a decade in the 90's because you're poor, kinda figured Atmos would be more like 3rd order periphonic playback by now, but all that stuff is still in a burlap sack under the bridge. i seriously think all the melted 8 tracks cursed the whole operation, like actual cursed it. people used to have surround sound in their cars. what happened? we've got SACDs but no players.
main point being, it's not so much the amps that made it exciting, people were still generally just excited about stereo. so old stereo gear is selling quasi stereo surround hype just to sell stereos. it's all garbage, but it's fun. like component bookshelf systems before the y2k bug made people stop buying them. except that wasn't the first time.


7 more years and it'll be a century of stereo... you'd think the phono input would have a video out because there's a whole MUSEUM of format history there. to support it all, you'd need a GUI. RetroArch for all the other media.
 
Last edited:
I don't. Quite costly and retro look, but meagre feature-set on the analogue side (just one line-in, no mono button, no switchable subsonic filter, no record-out at all (let alone a classic tape-loop with monitoring function...). Rather disappointing... *sigh*

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini
Dude! Didn't know you were here!?! :cool:
 
old stuff put the 'logic' in pro-logic
can't even play quad records anymore without unobtanium. it's not like it'd be hard by today's standards for a phono stage to support all 4 quad formats how long has it been anyway? there's a few b-format records out there too... would be nice to simply have access to the formats because it's more accessible, anyone can make quad multichannel quite easily... analog blumlein recordings sound great in quad.
How I do quad (& since these preamps have processor loops, you can insert whatever processors that you might need):

Quadraphonic Synthesis

With two Holman Preamplifiers, you can synthesis and control four output channels from just two input channels.

Apply all your inputs to the first Holman Preamplifier. Use it for all your tone controls, filters and source and tape selections. Leave its Stereo Mode in Stereo.

Connect the first Holman Preamplifier's MAIN 1 output to one power amplifier and your two front speakers.

Connect the first Holman Preamplifier's MAIN 2 output to any line-level input of the second Holman Preamplifier.

Connect the second Holman Preamplifier's MAIN 1 output to the power amplifier for your two rear speakers.

Rotate the second Holman Preamplifier's stereo mode control to L-R, and start by setting it to about unity gain or a bit less, and keep its tone controls flat. The tone and filter settings of the first Holman Preamplifier are fed automatically to the second Holman Preamplifier.

Set balance on the first preamp. Set front-rear balance on the Volume control of the second preamp.

Leave the power switch of the second preamp ON, and plug its power cord into a switched outlet of the first Holman Preamplifier. Now the power is controlled by the first Holman Preamplifier, too.

Then there is this:
Though the involve audio Surround Master V3 model adds an optical cable for easy connection to a CD player, HDMI remains a notable omission–especially with the troubling trend of new AVR units foregoing an analog 5.1 or 7.1 multi-channel input.

INVOLVE-AUDIO-Surround-Master-3-Longform-Review-1-1024x683.jpg

Jonathan Cornell
10/10/2022 says:
I used the following equipment to playback and capture the SMV3’s output:
  • JVC LA-55 turntable
  • Ortofon Red phono cartridge
  • Pyle PR-444 phono preamp
  • Behringer UMC-1820 USB recording interface
  • Yamaha RX-V665 A/V receiver
It’s important to note that when it comes to matrix decoding of a vinyl source, the user’s phono preamp and/or cartridge can definitely affect the results (in terms of both sonic clarity and channel separation).

To effectively audition the Surround Master V3’s “Involve” 4.0 surround synthesis mode, I used a song called “The Voice” from The Alan Parsons Project’s classic album I, Robot (1977). The phase information and wide stereo spread inherent to this recording will likely yield some interesting effect from almost any stereo-to-surround processor, but the Surround Master V3’s 4.0 presentation sounded almost like a real matrix quadraphonic LP!

Synthesizers and percussion gracefully dance around the four corners while the lead vocal and bass guitar stay locked to the front center position. Though I patiently await the day Alan Parsons revisits this album with a new 5.1 or Dolby Atmos, the Mobile Fidelity half-speed LP through the Surround Master V3 will more than suffice for now. I tried the two-speaker-surround (TSS) mode with the Parsons track as well, yielding a surprisingly wide soundstage with just two speakers in play.

R-8377295-1490211138-9589.jpeg

I also took the opportunity to compare the Surround Master V3’s SQ matrix decoding capabilities with discrete quad versions of the same recordings where applicable. As many in the surround community are no doubt aware, reissue labels such as Audio Fidelity and Dutton Vocalion have reissued dozens of CBS quadraphonic albums from the mid-to-late 1970s in the Super Audio CD format.

Due to the flaws of the SQ matrix encode/decode process, it’s unrealistic to expect the SMV3’s vinyl decode to equal or rival an SACD disc sourced from the discrete four channel master tape. That said, it’s also unrealistic to expect all 400 or so CBS pop quadraphonic albums issued from 1972-77 to be reissued on optical disc.

I would also add that CBS’ quadraphonic albums tended to feature very aggressive, engaging surround mixes that rival a lot of the new 5.1 and Atmos material available today. The rear channels are treated as equal partners in these recordings rather than a supplement to the front, featuring loud, isolated instruments for a “center-of-the-band” listening perspective.

The first song I auditioned was “Happy Man” from Chicago’s seventh album, originally issued on stereo & SQ quadraphonic LP in 1974. There was also a discrete version of the quad mix issued on 8-track tape and later Blu-Ray Audio as part of the now out-of-print Chicago Quadio deluxe box set.

INVOLVE-AUDIO-Surround-Master-3-Longform-Review-4-1024x454.png
(“Happy Man” decoded from the matrix quad vinyl edition of Chicago VII)
INVOLVE-AUDIO-Surround-Master-3-Longform-Review-2-1024x455.png
(“Happy Man” captured from the Blu-Ray Audio edition of Chicago VII)
The decoder does an effective job of largely isolating the acoustic guitar in the right rear speaker after the false start, but the soundstage becomes less precise as the other three channels enter the picture. The rhythm section is clearly arrayed across the front channels only on the Blu-Ray disc, while it sounds like it’s coming from all around on the vinyl quad presentation. I also noticed that the lead vocal seemed to extend further into the room on the vinyl, whereas it stayed pinned to the front speakers only on the Blu-Ray.

Finally, to evaluate the unit’s performance with Sansui QS matrix-encoded material I used the quadraphonic LP of Rufus & Chaka Khan’s classic 1974 album Rags To Rufus. The opening track, “You Got The Love,” kicks off with a choppy Nile Rodgers-esque funk guitar lead in the right rear speaker only. Through the Surround Master V3, the four channel image created by the decoded LP almost matches the discrete Q8 tape without the sonic drawbacks of the 8-track format.

INVOLVE-AUDIO-Surround-Master-3-Longform-Review-5-1024x456.png
(“You Got The Love” decoded from the matrix quad vinyl edition of Rags To Rufus)
INVOLVE-AUDIO-Surround-Master-3-Longform-Review-1-1024x454.png
(“You Got The Love” captured from the discrete quad 8-track edition of Rags To Rufus)
The unit’s performance with QS-encoded material is phenomenal, but – at least in my view – there’s only a handful of desirable titles in this format from the likes of Steely Dan, Joe Walsh, Jim Croce, The Four Tops, and the aforementioned Rufus.

Conclusion:

The Surround Master V3 is a powerful piece of gear for the surround enthusiast, with a number of interesting applications. Ultimately, I think it’s fair to say that most would be interested in purchasing primarily for its ability to effectively process stereo into an often-convincing quasi-surround. In this regard, I feel it is superior to systems embedded in modern AVRs such as Dolby Pro-Logic II and DTS Neo:6.

However, its ability to accurately play back vintage quadraphonic LPs is what really makes it a critical and unique component in my stereo system. It’s great to be able to achieve these kinds of results with quad material in 2022 without having to invest in a piece of used hardware like the Sansui QSD-2 or Fosgate Tate 101A.
 
Last edited:
Sansui had that function covered over 50 years ago, albeit with lousy SNR by modern standards due to all-analog circuitry.
1738305685192.png

Another 15 years go by, and Yamaha comes up with a better solution built around a their own custom DSP chip and an 8-bit CPU, an approach that provides two very convincing surround modes plus multiple hall ambience settings based on actual venues -- and support for not just four but six channels plus mono subwoofer and full-range outputs enabling a 7.1 ambience/surround configuration. The magnificent DSP-1 allows users to concoct their own custom settings and also supports an early version of Dolby Surround decoding, which a couple of years later was supplanted by the Dolby Pro-Logic capability of the companion DSR-100 Pro, which additionally brought a motorized remote-controlled master volume control to the party. AFAICT nothing modern -- and reasonably priced -- comes close.
1738306872013.png

1738307320023.png
 
Sansui had that function covered over 50 years ago, albeit with lousy SNR by modern standards due to all-analog circuitry.View attachment 424963
Another 15 years go by, and Yamaha comes up with a better solution built around a their own custom DSP chip and an 8-bit CPU, an approach that provides two very convincing surround modes plus multiple hall ambience settings based on actual venues -- and support for not just four but six channels plus mono subwoofer and full-range outputs enabling a 7.1 ambience/surround configuration. The magnificent DSP-1 allows users to concoct their own custom settings and also supports an early version of Dolby Surround decoding, which a couple of years later was supplanted by the Dolby Pro-Logic capability of the companion DSR-100 Pro, which additionally brought a motorized remote-controlled master volume control to the party. AFAICT nothing modern -- and reasonably priced -- comes close.View attachment 424969
View attachment 424970
I agree, & I offered the old way that I do it.
But the question seemed to be about a new way to do it, so I offered that, too.
 
I like a big black box with nothing but an on/off button. Anything else is extraneous. Form should serve function. You called that "modern amp" but it depends on your definition of "modern". Mine is like that and is over 30 years old. And that style was at least 20 years old back when it was new, so now we're talking 50 years ago.
My NAD 2200's are a simple box with 3 small informative LED s. Manufactured 1987-89. Not exactly modern. But simple enough while being functional in giving you information.
NAD 2200 stereo power amplifier audio review.jpg

But modern enough with plenty of power (from my:

NAD 2200 Vintage Amplifier Review reviewed here)​

:
1591750335920.png


NAD 2200 stereo power amplifier frequency response audio measurements.png


And signal to noise ratio:

NAD 2200 stereo power amplifier SNR Lab input audio measurements.png

NAD 2200 stereo power amplifier power into 4 ohm audio measurements.png

We can see a kink in distortion when we hit 200 watts as the unit sails past that to produce whopping 337 watts per channel, both driven!

Although I would like to have a pair of Proton for my subwoofers manufactured (1984-1986?):
Proton D1200 Stereo Amplifier (Fully Serviced & Cleaned)  - Picture 1 of 11

An aesthetic and more informative design with 4 small informative LED's and informative meters that I like much better for my subs (since I Tri-Amp).
If I had a pair of these with the bridged mono switch I would quad amp.
 
My NAD 2200's are a simple box with 3 small informative LED s. Manufactured 1987-89. Not exactly modern. But simple enough while being functional in giving you information.

But modern enough with plenty of power (from my:

NAD 2200 Vintage Amplifier Review reviewed here)​

:
1591750335920.png
@EJ3 That NAD 2200 seems to be a top performer of I understand the above correctly.
Hasn’t NAD produced something better (our equivalent) over the years?
 
My NAD 2200's are a simple box with 3 small informative LED s. Manufactured 1987-89. Not exactly modern. But simple enough while being functional in giving you information.
Similar to my 1994 Adcom 5800. The orange distortion light comes on when distortion reaches 1% (well above distortion at max continuous power). I've seen it flicker once in the 31 years I've owned it, and that was while playing a dynamic range test track.

Adcom5800-leds.jpg
 
@EJ3 That NAD 2200 seems to be a top performer of I understand the above correctly.
Hasn’t NAD produced something better (our equivalent) over the years?
Yes and No search the review index above. Many of there newer designs get good reviews. I think the posts above suggest that amplification is and has not been the weak link in audio for while. That said, preamps of old lack many of connectivity, control and features especially involving digital/internet of modern counterparts.
 
Yes and No search the review index above. Many of there newer designs get good reviews. I think the posts above suggest that amplification is and has not been the weak link in audio for while. That said, preamps of old lack many of connectivity, control and features especially involving digital/internet of modern counterparts.
Excellent point. I had a great preamplifier from the early 80s, pre-CD. When I bought a CD player its output was too high (2V) for any of the preamplifier's line inputs (tape, tuner, aux) which were designed for 1V, so I used a pad to halve the signal from the CD player.

Modern buyers need to be aware of this issue.
 
Excellent point. I had a great preamplifier from the early 80s, pre-CD. When I bought a CD player its output was too high (2V) for any of the preamplifier's line inputs (tape, tuner, aux) which were designed for 1V, so I used a pad to halve the signal from the CD player.

Modern buyers need to be aware of this issue.
My 3 Preamps from the 70's & 80's do just fine with CD players. I guess they handle the line in attenuation better.
 
My 3 Preamps from the 70's & 80's do just fine with CD players. I guess they handle the line in attenuation better.
Indeed, or they may just have had more headroom built in. Designing inputs is a balancing act between headroom/gain and noise. If you leave headroom to spare, you may have a measurably higher noise floor (which may not be audible, of course).
 
Indeed, or they may just have had more headroom built in. Designing inputs is a balancing act between headroom/gain and noise. If you leave headroom to spare, you may have a measurably higher noise floor (which may not be audible, of course).
Of the 3, 2 are identical ones, one of my 2 identical ones (internal updates being the same) has been tested by Amirm here:

Apt Holman Preamplifier Review (vintage Audio)​

 
I would postulate that the primary differences between high quality "vintage" and modern amplifiers mostly involve weight, which often drives cost of manufacturing.
The vintage designs which objectively performed well all had similar characteristics: The power supplies all required big heavy transformers and very large filter caps. They were Class A or Class A/B and ran hotter, so they needed larger heat sinks and higher temp rated components (driving up the cost of the filter caps even more). Then the chassis had to be larger and more robust. Soon you had stereo amps in the 200-300W per channel which were huge and easily 50 to 100+ lbs. Everything was point to point wiring, so the labor required to assemble it was far more.

To put it into perspective, in 1975 McIntosh released their MC2205 which was true 200Wx2 into 8Ohms. It was ~80 lbs. It sold for around $10,000 in "todays" dollars.

Now? Similar performance starts under what? $600? $500? If you want higher build quality, nicer parts, looks, etc.. maybe under a $1000?
 
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.

Did you periodically (ever few years) open it up and check for signs of bad electrolytic caps? Longevity for them have come a long way.

Not to mention the repairable nature of older amps. So long as it doesn't have unicorn tears for outputs or long obsolete ICs, old amps can be restored.

Newer class D amps seem to be disposable. I know a many simply have entire modules replaced. Basically the case remains but the guts get swapped. Maybe even under warranty. Fine. If the cost to repair can be justified, and you only have to do it once, you still have to argue that your rebuilt vintage gear makes you feel better about your system than modern equivalents.
There is a real 'limited usable lifespan' for much of modern technology. What was once SOTA can get so antiquated so fast. Not so much for amplifiers as I can't forsee a wholesale change from RCA or XLR. Not like component video to 1080p HDMI. How many AVR/AVP ended up in the dump simply as someone bought a new TV?
Well sort of. But a refurb of a vintage amp may cost more than all the modules in a class D (PSU+2x amp modules say). And most likely you are only going to need to replace one of those, (as long as the same modules are available, which is far from a given)

That is one of my thoughts. By their nature there is far more "ripple" current in any switch mode output which requires filtering so as to be inaudible. How long does it take before it may impact audibility or reliability? What is the long term supply of the microchips down the road? Really only time will tell on the typical longevity of them
 
Back
Top Bottom