Vintage amplifiers that could challenge or approach current state of the art amplifiers

[BDWoody]

What have the design companies been doing all these decades if the old stuff is better than new?

Making it all smaller, lighter, more efficient, and cheaper.

None of that means it will sound better under most circumstances if you are starting with a good amp.

I couldn't hear any difference between my Devialet amp and my old Krell or Adcom.

 

[sergeauckland]

I am baffled by the idea that old equipment can match or best modern. (Within a reasonable comparison, junk will always be junk)

Doesn't make any sense at all.

Aging components don't really matter?
What have the design companies been doing all these decades if the old stuff is better than new?

I suppose if you compare the state of the art amplifier from 1980, serviced and restored, with an average modern amplifier, you might get some parity but that is not apples vs apples.

It makes sense if you're comparing audibility of old and new amplifiers. Amplifiers from the late 1960s, like the Quad 303, were already audibly transparent when used within their specification. The limitations then were in output power and current delivery, not sound quality. Go on 20 years, and the amplifiers of the mid 1980s didn't have those limitations and amplifiers like the Quad 606, Musical Fidelity Dr Thomas and of course Krell and the like, could drive pretty much most loudspeakers, the Krell even managing the Apogee Scintilla.

Since then, as mentioned above, amps have got cheaper, lighter , more efficient and arguably more reliable (albeit less serviceable when they do go wrong) but not in any meaningful way better sounding.

S.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I am baffled by the idea that old equipment can match or best modern. (Within a reasonable comparison, junk will always be junk)

Doesn't make any sense at all.

Aging components don't really matter?
What have the design companies been doing all these decades if the old stuff is better than new?

I suppose if you compare the state of the art amplifier from 1980, serviced and restored, with an average modern amplifier, you might get some parity but that is not apples vs apples.

What your saying is inaccurate, shows no real experience with anything but current gear, and lacks historical perspective, but you're going to have to do some in-depth research for yourself if you're at all curious about the realities. I don't own or operate a vintinge HiFi shop, so personally I don't care if you like vintage gear or not.

 

[pseudoid]

I couldn't hear any difference between my Devialet amp and my old Krell or Adcom.

Do tell: What didja do with the Krell and what model was it? You made me drool again.
I think it is safe to say that proper power-amp of 30+ years ago, is not THAT much different in performance than current crop of power amps.

Making it all smaller, lighter, more efficient, and cheaper.

I am already a sinner and maybe I should hunt for an old Krell on craigslist and pitch my brick-sh*t-house Rotel to the curbside, like I did my Adcom and Mc275.

 

[Chr1]

I am most definitely a sinner and most likely going straight to hell. It would appear that I prefer Class A power amps from the 90s/00s, valve and hybrid...Most likely coloring the sound.
I will go happily for as Bon Scott says "Hell ain't a bad place to be" and it's cold here in Scotland.
And my AVR is low energy - class d/eco friendly.

 

[pseudoid]

I'm OK with that...

I can't place that Tuner (Top Right of rack) but is it a Heathkit? Definitely not a Revox?

 

[frunobulax]

Kenwood Basic M2A. I've been using it unmodified and unrepaired since 1986. I also have the matching preamp, the C2.

Specifications​

Power output: 220 watts per channel into 8Ω (stereo)

Frequency response: 1Hz to 300kHz

Total harmonic distortion: 0.004%

Damping factor: 1000

Input sensitivity: 1V

Signal to noise ratio: 120dB

Dimensions: 440 x 158 x 373mm

Weight: 15.5kg

Year: 1985

https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/kenwood/basic-m2a.shtml

 

[mhardy6647]

I can't place that Tuner (Top Right of rack) but is it a Heathkit? Definitely not a Revox?

Not a tuner on the top right -- it's an 'entry level', series filament string (i.e., transformerless, a/k/a "killer" chassis) Hallicrafters S-120 communications receiver. It does work pretty well actually -- so it has to sit someplace, you know?

source: https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Catalogs/Allied-Catalogs/Allied-Catalog-1963.pdf (sorry for the rather poor quality)

The only ReVox hardware here is one nice A77 (half-track, high-speed, rehabbed by Charles King) -- and two organ donor carcasses.
(and not that more wouldn't be welcome here )

 

[Mnyb]

I am baffled by the idea that old equipment can match or best modern. (Within a reasonable comparison, junk will always be junk)

Doesn't make any sense at all.

Aging components don't really matter?
What have the design companies been doing all these decades if the old stuff is better than new?

I suppose if you compare the state of the art amplifier from 1980, serviced and restored, with an average modern amplifier, you might get some parity but that is not apples vs apples.

There is physics we have been inching closer to real physical limits . A modern DAC showing “practical” 20bit to 21 bit resolution ( they are all 24 or 32 bit arithmetically , but again physics ) is hard to improve on .
Decibel is logarithmic if you want 2 volt out and scale back -125dB you are getting close to the self noise of just the atoms in resistors and transistors being at room temperature.

Hence why for example benchmark is using a formula where you can have a very high output DAC at like 10 volts driving an amp with rather low gain , to avoid physics.

Noticeable it seems to be the best of old poweramps that holds thier performance against new stuff ?

 

[BDWoody]

Do tell: What didja do with the Krell and what model was it? You made me drool again.
I think it is safe to say that proper power-amp of 30+ years ago, is not THAT much different in performance than current crop of power amps.

I am already a sinner and maybe I should hunt for an old Krell on craigslist and pitch my brick-sh*t-house Rotel to the curbside, like I did my Adcom and Mc275.

I still have it, and use 2 of its 3 channels for subwoofer duty.

It's the KAV250a/3. It wasn't one of their ultra high end crazy $$$ models, but one that was simply made well to do it's job.

They go for @$1,200-1,500 or so these days.

 

[pseudoid]

Not a tuner on the top right -- it's an 'entry level', series filament string (i.e., transformerless, a/k/a "killer" chassis) Hallicrafters S-120 communications receiver. It does work pretty well actually -- so it has to sit someplace, you know?
source: https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Catalogs/Allied-Catalogs/Allied-Catalog-1963.pdf (sorry for the rather poor quality)

ebay assures me that I am not (currently) hallucinating:
HEATHKIT MODEL GR-78 AM/CW/SSB SHORTWAVE & HAM RECEIVER

But no confirmation that it could've been my Yogi Berra ("It's like déjà vu all over again.") moment-of-the-day!
I recall helping to put one together... while learning the differences between a resistor and a toaster...

 

[mhardy6647]

ebay assures me that I am not (currently) hallucinating:
HEATHKIT MODEL GR-78 AM/CW/SSB SHORTWAVE & HAM RECEIVER
View attachment 188330
But no confirmation that it could've been my Yogi Berra ("It's like déjà vu all over again.") moment-of-the-day!
I recall helping to put one together... while learning the differences between a resistor and a toaster...

Oh.
There's one of those (GR-78) in the basement Pretty nice little radio.
And a Heathkit Mohican.

The former works fine, the latter's a fixer-upper, but it does "work" in the sense that it'll make noise. I don't think it's capable of reception, though... although I may be misremembering.
The name's rather embarassing in 2022, but the aesthetics are very cool

I have to say, when you wrote "Heathkit", I assumed you were thinking of a GR-54 or GR-64.

There... ummm... uhh... is a GR-54 here, too. In... ummm... the basement. It's a basket case, though, albeit intact. I acquired a set of tubes for it, but I've yet to get up the gumption to actually see if it might be resuscitatable (is that a word?).

You can see the GR-54, 64, and 78 in https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Catalogs/Allied-Catalogs/Heathkit-1971.pdf
and the Mohican in https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Catalogs/Allied-Catalogs/Heathkit-1966.pdf

... sorry for the digression.

 

[DanielT]

Kenwood Basic M2A. I've been using it unmodified and unrepaired since 1986. I also have the matching preamp, the C2.

Specifications​

Power output: 220 watts per channel into 8Ω (stereo)

Frequency response: 1Hz to 300kHz

Total harmonic distortion: 0.004%

Damping factor: 1000

Input sensitivity: 1V

Signal to noise ratio: 120dB

Dimensions: 440 x 158 x 373mm

Weight: 15.5kg

Year: 1985

https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/kenwood/basic-m2a.shtml

I like that, to call their own creation basic. It requires balls. Respect.

 

[TBone]

The NAD-3020 is dreadful on the bench. I've had maybe a dozen of them, bought simply because people pay stupid money for them. I wouldn't keep one.

correct me if wrong, but didnt the 3020 have a separate pre-amp output, including an excellent mm phono stage? remember it popular around these hills, the 3020 used as pre with hafler amps ...

also, those nads had that dreadful rca mounted direct to motherboard connection ...simply pushing a tight fitting cable could (often did) snap the solder/motherboard.

The Planet, bless it, tended to make things sound more 'the same' and it's very high output impedance (the Apollo R to this day is the same apparently) makes it harder to match with modern 10k loading in amps. We sold all our Planets with the Klotz AC110 based 'Couple' interconnect and the remote and it was still competitive with the Arcam direct competition of the time... yes, I'm fully aware that a baby Topping or latest Schiit among other dacs would eat it alive, but it was a good buy back in 1998 or so before home theatre took the interest away and people refused a top loading CD player

well, it just wasn't me ...

the orig planet was my first player to reach into the hi-end market. it arrived in town with a good rep, but then came the glowing stereophile review, in which demand and price almost doubled. it replacing technics & nad players. the rega went from sounding warm at first, to different, to obviously colored, to could not wait to replace. indeed, the topping e30 is far more neutral. still wish i had the ole british clamshell so i could measure, believe it was intentionally colored ...

 

[DanielT]

correct me if wrong, but didnt the 3020 have a separate pre-amp output, including an excellent mm phono stage? remember it popular around these hills, the 3020 used as pre with hafler amps ...

also, those nads had that dreadful rca mounted direct to motherboard connection ...simply pushing a tight fitting cable could (often did) snap the solder/motherboard.


well, it just wasn't me ...

the orig planet was my first player to reach into the hi-end market. it arrived in town with a good rep, but then came the glowing stereophile review, in which demand and price almost doubled. it replacing technics & nad pplayers. the rega went from sounding warm at first, to different, to obviously colored, to could not wait to replace. indeed, the topping e30 is far more neutral. still wish i had the ole british clamshell so i could measure, believe it was intentionally colored ...

Amplifier NAD 3020 measurements from Stereo Review: 1979

Due to the discussion about NAD 3020 in this thread: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/does-the-amplifier-amplify-the-noise.30106/page-2 .., I thought it would fit with a separate thread. If you had a NAD 3020 then what did you think of that amplifier? The NAD 3020 is a...

audiosciencereview.com

Plus miscellaneous about vintage HK in that thread. It waffles ( more or less...... after a while ... my fault) out but a little about NAD 3020 is in that thread

 

[dlaloum]

Some friends had NAD 3020's at the time (1985?) - and they sounded good in our bedrooms, with a pair of bookshelves and a basic turntable and/or CD player

 

[TBone]

thx danielt, didnt realize u had a sep nad thread ~ owned 1020 (iirc) which was basically the pre section of the 3020 in same box.

 

[DSJR]

HiFi Choice measured a good few NAD 3020 samples in its first-run several year life (I had a 3020A on my workstation back then and the phono stage did seem good enough at least, the slight low bass bump acepted). Very early ones were a complex rats nest inside and not hugely reliable in their first few years, but later examples we had seemed fine and a little tidier internally (my bench one was on eight hours a day five days at least a week and ran for sixteen years and arguable after this as I'd left the business by then).

The tone control-less 3120 wasn't so 'nice to listen to' though but I believe it performed better. yep, there were preamp outs on it and a pre only version was made I recall.

The 3020 'E' was a different limp-wristed thing done as a further cost cutting exercise and with smaller power supply I recall.

 

[Scytales]

the rega [Planet] went from sounding warm at first, to different, to obviously colored, to could not wait to replace.

Oh my God ! I have the exact same experience. I discard the Planet, my very first "hifi" CD player after months of frustrations !

 

[Shadrach]

The older I get the less impressed I am with any notion that reproduced sound is ever going to match 'the source'. I suppose, however, that that is the goal; but it is not my goal. Frankly, I don't think it will ever be a realizable, or practical goal.

Through numerous gear I've never, ever heard any reproduction (i.e. of a recorded musical event) that made me think, "Yes, that really sounds like Ella." Instead, my experience was always, "Yeah, it's the Memorex."

For me, the 'problem' with reproduction turns on the variance in the production--that is what I notice, more often that not. Whether I am listening to records or digit files, it is the production that annoys me, and often makes me unhappy. It is hardly ever the quality of the reproduced sound (I mean the difference in loudspeakers), which, in any case, my ears get used to pretty quickly. In fine, I tend to overlook/ignore the gear, understanding its intrinsic limitations, but instead concentrate more on what the producer was doing, at the console. Some do it 'better' than others. Some producers make a more pleasing product. I guess that is a personal preference, too.

That said, there is a point where the reproduction is low enough, or weird enough, to mask vagaries within the production. We want to avoid that. Probably a table radio or boom box is at the limit. Maybe a Bose 901. But reproduction on any 'decent' hi-fi is usually good enough to show off production values.

Also, there is a point in reproduction where 'what the microphone hears' is so far removed from anything that sounds realistic... that is to say, the performance that the microphone is attempting to pick up. There is a point where the reproduced listening experience becomes completely removed from reality. Here, I'm talking about headphones. The idea that a headphone can be 'natural' sounding in any way is an idea that has pretty much always escaped me. It is not the FR/distortion (and so on) that I'm talking about, but rather the experience of having sound 'direct injected' into the ear canals. Others certainly think differently. Headphones are now the big thing in hi-fi. I am not the customer for high priced headphones, for sure.

As an aside, when I was younger, headphones were never that important, for anyone. I would guess they really took off with the introduction of 'personal' sound--Walkmans, Discmans, and the later Apple digit-pods, now turned into cell-phones. We have a generation or two that probably only 'knows' sound via headphones.

Back in the day one could buy headphone-oriented 'binaural' recordings which were supposed to give a good facsimile of what the ears were supposed to have heard, within a natural sound field. I never listened to any of those, but only read about them.

Sometimes I think I need to get another hobby, but I might be too old to start anything new!

I like this post.
I can't immediately think of any other art form where a person or a group of people can make something glorious and beautiful only to have some so called engineer come along and turn it into a pile of shite.
Why, if we are music lovers, rather than low level technology enthusiasts, we are not hanging so called recording engineers by the neck until dead is beyond me.
To add insult to injury the audio enthusiasts then spend thousands of pounds and countless hours of pointless arguments on trying to make the shite as true a representation of shite as possible. I find I have some sympathy with those who state that they don't care about the science, the measurements and the equipments; they like what they do exactly because it isn't a perfect reproduction of the shite and sounds a little less like shite to their ears.