Yamaha A-1 Vintage Amplifier Review

[Eirikur]

Fantastic to see a classic reviewed, and rather satisfying to see that measurement indicates that the reverence some of us have for classic hifi is not just rose tinted nostalgia.

Hear, hear!

I actually think the mass market move away from stereo systems and towards viewing audio equipment as a commodity in the late 90's and on was actually much more rational and sensible than all the audiophile nonsense that sustains the high end bubble. I find it all very sad as a good set up (and I mean good, not expensive, it need not cost a great deal) does make listening to music more enjoyable.

Don't forget the upside: buy 3 great vintage stereo power amps and you're all set for the ultimate 5.1 experience.
Just add a good 5.1 DAC, and guess where you might find some information on that

 

[GrimSurfer]

I actually think the mass market move away from stereo systems and towards viewing audio equipment as a commodity in the late 90's and on was actually much more rational and sensible than all the audiophile nonsense that sustains the high end bubble. I find it all very sad as a good set up (and I mean good, not expensive, it need not cost a great deal) does make listening to music more enjoyable.

This is true on a certain level.

Comparing audio to another piece of consumer, such as the automobile, leaves one feeling a bit flat.

Were we to compare the performance of cars from the 80s to the ones today, we'd come away with the view that everything has improved. The cars accelerate faster using less fuel. They brake better. They are unquestionably safer and are more reliable. All while costing the same or less in relative terms.

 

[Zaki Ghul]

...a culture of golden eared disdain for measured performance evolved, aided and abetted by reviewers who waxed lyrical about shoddily engineered and made boutique gear which had terrible measured performance. Products like this were derided as being "sterile", soulless, bland, lacking all the usual audiophile subjective terms blah blah blah, ...

It is funny how even niches are a microcosm of the whole. Those reviewers in the 80s had to have been motivated by and/or exploiting sentiments of patriotism, protectionism, and a threatened sense of Western superiority. Today It is the same attitude with regards to Chinese brands if not worse. (At least the Japanese stuff was aknowledged )

 

[GrimSurfer]

It is funny how even niches are a microcosm of the whole. Those reviewers in the 80s had to have been motivated by and/or exploiting sentiments of patriotism, protectionism, and a threatened sense of Western superiority. Today It is the same attitude with regards to Chinese brands if not worse. (At least the Japanese stuff was aknowledged )

Were it not for endemic IP theft, worker exploitation, environmental atrocities, and shoddy QA, I'd be all for China.

These were many things Japan did not have, as there was a long history of artisan culture, a high value placed on workmanship and underlying respect for nature that dated back several centuries.

As much as one might criticize reviews in the 80s, people in NA and Europe had largely embraced Japanese industrial practices from the 1970s onwards. Personally, I can't think of anyone dismissing Japanese electronics from that time. If anything, they were fearful because Japan had advanced to the point of eclipsing the west in just about everything other than innovation.

 

[Zaki Ghul]

This is true on a certain level.

Comparing audio to another piece of consumer, such as the automobile, leaves one feeling a bit flat.

Were we to compare the performance of cars from the 80s to the ones today, we'd come away with the view that everything has improved. The cars accelerate faster using less fuel. They brake better. They are unquestionably safer and are more reliable. All while costing the same or less in relative terms.

I was actually just thinking about how often cars and audio come up in audio threads in support of various points of view. I think it is an extremely flawed comparison. Cars address far more objectives than an audio system, and they have to do it in various environments that are far less controlled and with much more compromise. I actually think something simpler like prescription glasses are a better comparison

 

[GrimSurfer]

Cars address far more objectives than an audio system, and they have to do it in various environments that are far less controlled and with much more compromise. I actually think something simpler like prescription glasses are a better comparison

If anything, this makes advances harder to achieve in cars than audio. So I must wonder why audio has been resting on its laurels for so long?

Perhaps it's an absence of regulation?

 

[Zaki Ghul]

Were it not for endemic IP theft, worker exploitation, environmental atrocities, and shoddy QA, I'd be all for China.

These were many things Japan did not have, as there was a long history of artisan culture, a high value placed on workmanship and underlying respect for nature that dated back several centuries.

As much as one might criticize reviews in the 80s, people in NA and Europe had largely embraced Japanese industrial practices from the 1970s onwards. Personally, I can't think of anyone dismissing Japanese electronics from that time. If anything, they were fearful because Japan had advanced to the point of eclipsing the west in just about everything other than innovation.

True. But I don't think that's what's stopping Stereophile from reviewing topping products since most Western companies build their stuff in China anyways.

 

[Zaki Ghul]

Before anyone calls me out on the flaws of my glasses comparison, I take it back. We don't want any subjectivist arguing for audio that works best with their individual hearing .

 

[AudioSceptic]

Were it not for endemic IP theft, worker exploitation, environmental atrocities, and shoddy QA, I'd be all for China.

These were many things Japan did not have, as there was a long history of artisan culture, a high value placed on workmanship and underlying respect for nature that dated back several centuries.

As much as one might criticize reviews in the 80s, people in NA and Europe had largely embraced Japanese industrial practices from the 1970s onwards. Personally, I can't think of anyone dismissing Japanese electronics from that time. If anything, they were fearful because Japan had advanced to the point of eclipsing the west in just about everything other than innovation.

Yes, the mass market was pretty much won over by the 80s. For any home tech, Japanese was the default choice (what, British hi-fi?* I didn't know we made any!). Same with cameras, apart from cheap Kodaks and some German stuff (cheap from E, pricey from W).

*Apart from speakers. That still persists here, mostly.

 

[AudioSceptic]

True. But I don't think that's what's stopping Stereophile from reviewing topping products since most Western companies build their stuff in China anyways.

Wouldn't that be because companies like Topping don't advertise there, and don't submit products for review? Not their market.

 

[DonH56]

Wouldn't that be because companies like Topping don't advertise there, and don't submit products for review? Not their market.

I don't think it has anything to do with advertising but rather Stereophile's requirements for physical dealers and perhaps editorial/reviewer desires (what they want to review). Stereophile has acknowledged in their editorials that high-end (expensive) stuff attracts more readers.

 

[AudioSceptic]

I don't think it has anything to do with advertising but rather Stereophile's requirements for physical dealers and perhaps editorial/reviewer desires (what they want to review). Stereophile has acknowledged in their editorials that high-end (expensive) stuff attracts more readers.

OK. So "not their market" still applies?

 

[DonH56]

OK. So "not their market" still applies?

Not Topping's market? I don't know but tend to agree with you. I imagine advertising in Stereophile is expensive and if Topping is selling as much as they can handle now there's no incentive to advertise more widely. I am more a "skimmer" but do not recall seeing a lot (if any) internet-direct companies advertising in Stereophile. I expect they choose internet-based advertising such as banner ads on various audio websites.

BUT, bear in mind I am an engineer, not a marketing guy!

 

[AudioSceptic]

Not Topping's market? I don't know but tend to agree with you. I imagine advertising in Stereophile is expensive and if Topping is selling as much as they can handle now there's no incentive to advertise more widely. I am more a "skimmer" but do not recall seeing a lot (if any) internet-direct companies advertising in Stereophile. I expect they choose internet-based advertising such as banner ads on various audio websites.

BUT, bear in mind I am an engineer, not a marketing guy!

By "their market" I mean that it's too cheap to be any good. "It might measure well, but we care about sound quality and that requires art as well as science, and only hi-end brands like Krell, Levinson and PS Audio can give us that." I do wonder how many of the $50k+ products reviewed at Stereophile sell more than double figures, though.

 

[DonH56]

By "their market" I mean that it's too cheap to be any good. "It might measure well, but we care about sound quality and that requires art as well as science, and only hi-end brands like Krell, Levinson and PS Audio can give us that." I do wonder how many of the $50k+ products reviewed at Stereophile sell more than double figures, though.

I couldn't say; @Kal Rubinson may have more insight though may be enjoined from commenting. Stereophile has historically had some sort of "cheapskate" column though I am not sure they have one now. And while the magazine obviously has an interest in keeping audio gear sale up there, their primary business is to sell magazines, which requires readers and advertisers. I imagine there is some elitism at work with at least some reviewers (look at the prices of the TTs and carts in those columns!) but have no idea if that has any impact on review choices. Maybe? If I were a reviewer, I'd probably want to review the fancy stuff I could never afford, eh? I am not sure that equates to "too cheap to be good" but in this I am ironically less cynical than dealing with most things human.

 

[simbloke]

What would be far more useful is taking two products with different profiles like this and doing some empirical tests.

Go on then. Setup a web site and publish the results for all the world to see. Then sit back and wonder how your efforts are criticised from all sides.

 

[Ceburaska]

I still have a DAS 702ES which I bought new but I fear that shipping it to and from Amir would cost a fortune.
Edit:
If I can find anybody who would be interested in doing it with me I will try to put together a system here where I can compare mine level matched and blind with some of the others I have, such as AudioSynthesis DAX which has Ultra Analog DAC chips which I used to use with my DAT recorder, and RME ADI-2 Pro but I hate doing it on my own and usually end up just listening to music if I put on something I like and forget I am supposed to be comparing stuff.

All round Frank’s then for an ASR (UK) bake off.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I couldn't say; @Kal Rubinson may have more insight though may be enjoined from commenting. Stereophile has historically had some sort of "cheapskate" column though I am not sure they have one now.

I am only a writer, not management/administration, but, AFAIK, the magazine makes a great effort to cover products across the entire price spectrum of serious audio. Of course, inclusion of lower priced stuff annoys those who think only expensive equipment should be considered just as the inclusion of very expensive stuff annoys others.

 

[AudioSceptic]

I am only a writer, not management/administration, but, AFAIK, the magazine makes a great effort to cover products across the entire price spectrum of serious audio. Of course, inclusion of lower priced stuff annoys those who think only expensive equipment should be considered just as the inclusion of very expensive stuff annoys others.

Thanks, but that prompts the question, "what is serious audio?". There's no upper limit on price, but is there a lower one, explicit or not?

 

[anmpr1]

As I recall (and memory is not the best arbiter of fact), Yamaha was generally sold via dealers sans the usual "Pioneer" discount. Example: a Pioneer SA-9500 v2 integrated amplifier had a 'list' at $450.00, but mail order price was about $300.00. It had similar specs to this Yamaha... maybe better. Pioneer's massive SX-1250 receiver sported a $900.00 list, but mail order was about $550.00. Brick and mortars hated that, and by necessity gravitated to lines without this sort of discounting mentality. Eventually Pioneer became persona non grata.

The Yamaha dealer in my area sold SAE (a line of separates originally designed, I think, by Jim Bongiorno), Bang and Olufsen, and Tandberg. They even sold the Ira Gale/Sao Win turntable, along with Ira's speakers. You couldn't buy those brands at a discount. If you entered their store and admitted you owned a Pioneer, or were thinking about one, they'd laugh in your face (OK--maybe they'd be more subtle about it). They'd tell you how Yamaha was the 'real' high-end of Japanese electronics. Of course Yamaha 'sounded' better. They'd convince you of that.

Later, you might pick up one of the 'underground' hi-fi magazines. There, Yamaha would usually play second violin to some obscure American boutique manufacturer; a manufacturer that might not be in business a month later, after you spent a thousand dollars on his amp that just blew up, and took out your speakers. Then you'd wished you'd bought the Yamaha. Or Pioneer.

Even with all the politics and BS, gear from those days had a certain 'class' that you just don't find much anymore. My current amp runs circles around any of that era's stuff. But I'd like it even more if it looked as nice as some of the Yamaha (or Pioneer) electronics from those days.