Is "Vintage" Gear Really Worth It??
Casper
One of the things I enjoy about this group are the discussions over
various old, or "vintage" equipment. It is often difficult to find
information and there is a vast wealth of that here by virtue of the
various gereations represented. With that in mind, how many of you
believe vintage gear to still be valuable?
Say for example I were a young person starting out today in the
delightful hobby of audio, would you recommend vintage gear over new
gear? If so, why? What are the pitfalls of vintage gear? What should I
expect with vintage gear in terms of sound and equipment quality?
Should I be concerned about repairs and replacement parts?
I have been pondering these questions for some time while looking at
the piles of gear I have accumulated over the years. I admire the
younger folks I have read in forums who have delved into the vintage
waters but it is often difficult for me to consider something I have
as vintage because my timeline it different. While I have had great
success purchasing things second hand, I know for others it has been
the exact opposite. A risk we all take in making such purchases. My
question boils down to, "What is REALLY worth it?"
I used to admire SAE equipment when I was young but it was out of my
allowance range. As I grew up and into this hobby, I found other
brands to satisfy and delight me. Today I ran across an auction that
struck me as 'extreme'. While on the one hand I have been tempted to
purchase the equipment I admired so long ago, I have resisted because
of its age. Technology has come a long way and although I am still
impressed by the sound of those older pieces, I have to question which
is the better path.
So price aside, what value would you place on this gear? Would you
even pay a tenth of the asking price? Is it worth it to own certain
pieces of gear at any price or age?? I'm honestly not sure how I feel
about it any more and am curious how other audio folks feel about it.
Perhaps I am just as infused with today's gear as I was back then
about what is now vintage gear. How do you feel about it?
Sonnova
(in article <7b51n4F...@mid.individual.net>):
> Let me try this again ...
>
> One of the things I enjoy about this group are the discussions over
> various old, or "vintage" equipment. It is often difficult to find
> information and there is a vast wealth of that here by virtue of the
> various gereations represented. With that in mind, how many of you
> believe vintage gear to still be valuable?
>
> Say for example I were a young person starting out today in the
> delightful hobby of audio, would you recommend vintage gear over new
> gear? If so, why? What are the pitfalls of vintage gear? What should I
> expect with vintage gear in terms of sound and equipment quality?
> Should I be concerned about repairs and replacement parts?
The only advantage that used gear has over new gear is that you get more bang
for your buck. It is possible to purchase perfectly good equipment that was
SOTA 5, 10 years ago for very reasonable money that will sound great and last
for many years. Vintage equipment, OTOH, is another matter. Often so-called
vintage equipment contains things like carbon composition resistors which
tend to be noisy, especially in high-gain circuits and paper capacitors which
leak and ceramic caps which tend to sound lousy. Also, older vintage
equipment often has a type of multi-section filter capacitor in the power
supply that simply isn't available any more. Not that they can't be replaced
with modern single section caps, but often there is simply no room in the old
chassis. Another problem is that modern gear tends to have stiffer power
supplies than vintage gear and this can affect performance. Finally, vintage
gear has old fashioned tin RCA jacks with ceramic centers and they can be
unreliable along with the phenolic speaker connector strips that have small
screws and no barrier between taps which can cause stray wire strands to
short out the amplifier and they limit the size and type of speaker cable one
can use.
I'm not saying that all of these things cannot be fixed and I've known a
number of audio hobbyists who pride themselves on their ability to refurbish
vintage equipment, bringing it up to modern standards without altering the
circuitry in any way. A case in point is an acquaintance of mine who took an
old Harman-Kardon Citation I tube preamp that someone gave him, went through
it and replaced all the resistors with metal film units, the pots with Alps
plastic film controls and the capacitors with polypropylene, Mylar and
polystyrene capacitors. He then up-rated the power supply with bigger caps
and replaced the old style tin RCA connectors with modern WBT type gold
connectors with single nut mounting. The unit performs as well as any modern
tube preamp and the phono stage is quiet and the RIAA curve is quite accurate
- giving testimony to the soundness of Stewart Hegeman's original design. On
the other hand, the project took him close to a year (the Citation 1 was NOT
a simple circuit like the Dynaco PAS-3X) And I hate to think how much the
parts cost him.
Unless one has pretty good electronics skills, I would not recommend this
route.
Arny Krueger
news:7b51n4F...@mid.individual.net
> Let me try this again ...
>
> One of the things I enjoy about this group are the
> discussions over various old, or "vintage" equipment. It
> is often difficult to find information and there is a
> vast wealth of that here by virtue of the various
> gereations represented. With that in mind, how many of
> you believe vintage gear to still be valuable?
Some of it is valuable, mostly because of a market in sentimental value,
that has built up. For example, the market for classic 50s and 60s Marantz
and JBL gear in the Pacific rim is legendary.
I know of no cases where gear from the 50s and 60s actually works any better
than modern gear. Most of it doesn't work nearly as well as even the same
kind of component as mid fi from an appliance store, if it is still being
actively marketed in the mainstream.
Some money can be saved by steering away from golden oldies and classic
investment-grade pieces, but looking at reasonably modern gear being sold
for far less than new equipment street prices, because it has been used and
well-maintained for a few years.
Serge Auckland
news:7b6nqdF...@mid.individual.net...
than top vintage equipment. I think the analogy with vintage cars is
apposite:- What is better, a modern car costing, say 10,000 or a vintage car
of the same present cost?..A Modern Ford Focus or a 20 year-old Rolls Royce?
Dave
"What is REALLY worth it?"
>
I'd agree with Sonnova who noted the bang vs. buck ratio on older or vintage
equipment. Not to pick nits, but I'd separate vintage into two
sub-categories: vintage from pre-1975 and vintage from post-1975. Around
'75 semiconductor technology was hitting the flat part of the curve,
stability and QC issues had been worked out, and most components on the
market offered long life, low distortion, and many features unheard-of in
the tube era which preceded this type of equipment.
Prior to 1970 or so what you saw was tubed equipment. Fantastic sound, if
you like it, but a different can of worms altogether.
The early 70's were when companies figured out how to make a solid-state
amplifier or receiver that worked and was cost-effective (and that didn't
come in a gigantic wooden "console".)
>From the mid-70's to about the mid-80's was the golden era of transistor
audio... the companies involved, Pioneeer, Yamaha, Kenwood, Sansui, Marantz
and many more, were engaged in a one-up-manship competition for the biggest
baddest most powerful receiver that could be made and sold (to enough people
to pay the development costs). The Sansui DB9090 and Yamaha CR2020 were
representative examples of this era. In addition to being high powered,
this equipment was built like brick shithouses. No expense was spared.
Heatsinks were large and heavy, filter capacitance exceeded 20,000uF, giant
power transformers were common, and the finishes were SUPERB... brushed
anodized aluminum, real glass, weighted metal knobs, wood cases, heavy
steel chasses, etc. What's cooler than a VU meter that maxes out at 400W?
Power rating advertisement was federally regulated and so was accurate, and
was determined in real-world conditions, i.e. the unit had to perform at a
certain output level for a certain amount of time and the power output had
to span the human hearing range. They were built to last which is why you
see so many of them commanding top dollar on that auction site.
As we slipped into the mid-80's competition was fierce, and most
manufacturers' product lines degenerated into "BPC" or "black plastic crap".
Flimsy lightweight chassis, small aluminum heatsinks, undersized
transformers, and analog functions approximated using inexpensive
low-quality IC's. For the most part it sounded okay, and was cheap to
buy/replace. Gone was the wood, the hand-assembly, the fantastic finishes.
Lightweight knobs, cheap pushbutton switches and microswitches were the
norm. Vu's were replaced with LED/LCD meters.
In the 90's we entered the HT realm, where 6 or 7 amp channels are now
jammed into the space previously occupied by two. Along with the DSP board,
the crossover network, etc. The power ratings on these things are
riduculous. "7 x 120W" advertised on the side of the box. The power rating
is for instantaneous power at 1000Hz in a single channel. Try driving 7
channels at 120W (or even half the channels at half the power) for 2 hours
from 20-20,000Hz and watch that fancy home-theatre receiver burst into
flame!
All that having been said, I think companies today, like Outlaw Audio to
name a personal favorite, put out some damn fine sounding, quality-built
gear at affordable prices. One nice thing I find with older equipment is
that I can fix it myself, but my wife... not so much. Right now I am
listening to a pair of speakers that cost $2,000 new, an amp that cost
$1,200 new, a DAC that cost $800 new, and a turntable that cost $800 new. I
spent maybe, ummmm, $300 for this stuff, although I will grant you some of
it needed some TLC. Routine maintenance must be done, such as putting new
tires and brakes into an old vintage car... there are some parts such as
electrolytic capacitors which simply do not last forever. But, most of the
good stuff won't have ceramic caps in the signal path and will have specs
every bit as good as what's available today. If you're not insistent on
grabbing some piece that's got a cult following and pricetag to match, you
can get some helluva great deals on older equipment.
Just my 2 cents.
Dave
Sonnova
(in article <h2mn4...@news5.newsguy.com>):
Depends. I have a 25 year-old Alfa Romeo and I wouldn't trade it for any
modern car costing below $100K. Modern cars are too heavy and have no life to
them. They're dead. In the Alfa, I can feel the road through the steering
wheel and brake pedal as well as the seat of my pants. In short, I become one
with the car and it's FUN to drive. Modern cars have had that kind of driver
feedback "engineered" out of them. My daily driver is late model VW GTI.
While it has great roadholding, It's an utter BORE to drive.
Now, modern audio equipment, especially electronics, is mostly better than
older equipment (unlike cars) in almost every way. Modern high-end stuff is
well made, and usually well engineered and will last it's owners a very long
time. OTOH, modern cheap equipment like Japanese-brand receivers might
perform equally well to a comperable high-end piece, but will likely be in a
land fill within 10 years. That's what happens when you build down to a price
rather than up to a standard. That's my opinion, of course.
Norman Schwartz
> �Right now I am
> listening to a pair of speakers that cost $2,000 new, an amp that cost
> $1,200 new, a DAC that cost $800 new, and a turntable that cost $800 new. �I
> spent maybe, ummmm, $300 for this stuff, although I will grant you some of
> it needed some TLC. �Routine maintenance must be done, such as putting new
> tires and brakes into an old vintage car... there are some parts such as
> electrolytic capacitors which simply do not last forever.
Yikes!, $300 for all of that "stuff"? Can you please tell us which new
$2000 speakers you have? If you are listening to a system composed of
such stuff, it can't sound any better (or worse) than the speakers
themselves. In any event a decent sounding cartridge (alone) can
easily set one back $300, so I can't fathom what's in there, unless
everything in it was offered "for use as parts" and completely busted.
Laying a little cash for capacitors isn't going to restore a "trashed"
speaker and/or turntable to new condition. I think the ribbons alone
in my speakers will set me back almost $300 to replace.
> Dave
Arny Krueger
news:h2npt...@news6.newsguy.com
> Depends. I have a 25 year-old Alfa Romeo and I wouldn't
> trade it for any modern car costing below $100K.
That's a choice you get to make. My wife always looks at "Antique Road Show"
and says "If I had a table worth $100,000", I'd cash it out."
I agree, it is not that we are so hard up for cash, it is that our life has
no place for $100,000 tables.
> Modern cars are too heavy and have no life to them.
I don't know which 25 year-old Alfa you have, but I remember driving if
memory serves, a contemporary Alfa Spyder about 20 years ago, and it was a
ton of fun around town and in the country near by. But it was no car for me
and my wife to take on a long trip.
The Alfa felt light, but records show that it weighed only about 600 pounds
less than my Milan with twice the horsepower, and twice the passenger
capacity.
Today the comparable Alfa convertable weighs considerably more than my
sedan, but has only about half the horsepower. It should be pretty
disappointing to drive.
> They're dead.
Exciting on short trips is tiring in the long haul.
> In the Alfa, I can feel the road through the
> steering wheel and brake pedal as well as the seat of my
> pants.
I've never had a car where that wasn't true once I became accustomed to it.
> In short, I become one with the car and it's FUN
> to drive.
Sounds like a mongamous lifetime marriage.
> Modern cars have had that kind of driver
> feedback "engineered" out of them. My daily driver is
> late model VW GTI. While it has great roadholding, It's
> an utter BORE to drive.
The most exciting vehicle I've driven in recent years was a 1968 VW Kombi.
At 45 mph it felt like my Milan at maybe twice that speed. I didn't consider
that to be a feature that I'd like to have replicated,.
> Now, modern audio equipment, especially electronics, is
> mostly better than older equipment (unlike cars) in
> almost every way. Modern high-end stuff is well made, and
> usually well engineered and will last it's owners a very
> long time. OTOH, modern cheap equipment like
> Japanese-brand receivers might perform equally well to a
> comperable high-end piece, but will likely be in a land
> fill within 10 years.
Actually, I got about 10 years out of my last cheap pacific-rim receiver,
and then I burned it out by making a dumb mistake. It might be around
otherwise.
>That's what happens when you build down to a price rather than up to a
>standard.
High end stuff is not known to be any more reliable than mass-market
components, all other things being equal. Overbuilt does not make for
necessarily greater reliability. It does make for necessarily greater cost.
Serge Auckland
I understand what you mean, even if I disagree. I've never liked Alfas,
tried to get to like them, but were always too noisy and skittish for me. I
prefer a BMW, a much calmer drive, almost wafting.
What I mean by this is that your fun is my rough, my wafting is your boring.
I find the same comparing vintage audio equipment. Vintage is fun, modern is
boring, but for reliability and predictability, I'll take boring every time.
As to longevity, I think that even modern mass-market brands will last a
long time if the owner doesn't get bored with them and send them to
landfill. Sadly, those who buy mass-market brands are probably not very
committed to audio as a hobby, and are therefore more likely to get bored.
Those buying hi-end brands are making a commitment, whether monetary or time
and space, and are consequently less likely to get bored....although they'll
probably engage in more box-swapping than the less committed.
S.
Sonnova
(in article <7b8oemF...@mid.individual.net>):
> "Casper" <amd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7b51n4F...@mid.individual.net...
> "What is REALLY worth it?"
>>
>
> I'd agree with Sonnova who noted the bang vs. buck ratio on older or vintage
> equipment. Not to pick nits, but I'd separate vintage into two
> sub-categories: vintage from pre-1975 and vintage from post-1975. Around
> '75 semiconductor technology was hitting the flat part of the curve,
> stability and QC issues had been worked out, and most components on the
> market offered long life, low distortion, and many features unheard-of in
> the tube era which preceded this type of equipment.
I have no real qualms for that except that I consider pre 1980 equipment
"vintage" and post 1980 eauipment as "used".
Dave
> modern car costing below $100K. Modern cars are too heavy and have no life
> to
> them. They're dead. In the Alfa, I can feel the road through the steering
> wheel and brake pedal as well as the seat of my pants. In short, I become
> one
> with the car and it's FUN to drive. Modern cars have had that kind of
> driver
> feedback "engineered" out of them. My daily driver is late model VW GTI.
> While it has great roadholding, It's an utter BORE to drive.
>
My brother owns a 1967 Alfa GTV, and it is a BLAST to drive. It growls, it
burbles, and anyone who has ever ridden in it as a passenger wants to drive
it (or buy one). This car has nothing automatic about it, no traction
control, no anti-lock brakes, etc. so it does take a great deal more skill
to drive it than a more modern auto. But that's part of the fun too...
pf...@aol.com
the interpolations.
On Jul 2, 8:29�pm, Casper <amdh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Let me try this again ...
>
> One of the things I enjoy about this group are the discussions over
> various old, or "vintage" equipment. It is often difficult to find
> information and there is a vast wealth of that here by virtue of the
> various gereations represented. With that in mind, how many of you
> believe vintage gear to still be valuable?
Valuable: Sure it is. Well made gear holds some value but junk remains
junk however 'vintage' it might be. Don't be fooled by mere
survivorship and age.
> Say for example I were a young person starting out today in the
> delightful hobby of audio, would you recommend vintage gear over new
> gear? If so, why? What are the pitfalls of vintage gear? What should I
> expect with vintage gear in terms of sound and equipment quality?
> Should I be concerned about repairs and replacement parts?
I use almost exclusively vintage gear. My newest piece of serious
equipment is a 2004-vintage Yamaha CD changer. After which it is a
long stretch back to the next newest piece - a tuner from c. 1995 or
so, and active items in the inventory date from the very early 60s.
The electronics will sound as well as about anything made today at
about any price. Where evolution has had the greatest efffect (for
both good and ill) is with speakers - and, as always, where you should
spend the bulk of your research (and money) as you will realize the
greatest impact on your system. But - I pretty much always advise
_AGAINST_ vintage equipment for those individuals who are incapable of
the required maintenance, cannot do basic repairs or must have others
do this for them. This can get costly in a hurry. Consider vintage
equipment in the same light as a vintage automobile. Unless one is
either skilled or wealthy they do not make very good daily drivers.
But with those skills (or wealth) can be quite wonderful. This is an
analogy, not a perfect parallel, of course.
> I have been pondering these questions for some time while looking at
> the piles of gear I have accumulated over the years. I admire the
> younger folks I have read in forums who have delved into the vintage
> waters but it is often difficult for me to consider something I have
> as vintage because my timeline it different. While I have had great
> success purchasing things second hand, I know for others it has been
> the exact opposite. A risk we all take in making such purchases. My
> question boils down to, "What is REALLY worth it?"
About what someone else is willing to pay for it. Not a flip answer,
but some things are obvious, some less so.
> I used to admire SAE equipment when I was young but it was out of my
> allowance range. As I grew up and into this hobby, I found other
> brands to satisfy and delight me. Today I ran across an auction that
> struck me as 'extreme'. While on the one hand I have been tempted to
> purchase the equipment I admired so long ago, I have resisted because
> of its age. Technology has come a long way and although I am still
> impressed by the sound of those older pieces, I have to question which
> is the better path.
Resisting SAE equipment was, is, and will remain a wise policy. In
general, unless you know or remember actual sound from actual
equipment such that you are willing to invest unheard, purchasing
vintage equipment based on nostalgia is silly. And if you are going to
purchase unheard - only those things you can turn over quickly after
disappointments - which will be inevitable and frequent if you are not
very, very careful.
> So price aside, what value would you place on this gear? Would you
> even pay a tenth of the asking price? Is it worth it to own certain
> pieces of gear at any price or age?? I'm honestly not sure how I feel
> about it any more and am curious how other audio folks feel about it.
> Perhaps I am just as infused with today's gear as I was back then
> about what is now vintage gear. How do you feel about it?
>
> VINTAGE GEAR:http://cgi.ebay.com/SAE-and-ESS-Monster-400-Watt-RMS-Home-Audio-Syste...66%3A2|39%3A1|240%3A1318|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50
As to that particular system - I would not have it in my house. Nor
would I offer more than perhaps $0.50/pound for it based on an
anticipated quick resale value of perhaps $0.75/pound. Just my
opinion. But as a rule, never spend more on any single purchase of
equipment than you wouldn't mind loosing at a casual poker game.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
pf...@aol.com
> Yikes!, $300 for all of that "stuff"? Can you please tell us which new
> $2000 speakers you have? If you are listening to a system composed of
> such stuff, it can't sound any better (or worse) than the speakers
> themselves. In any event a decent sounding cartridge (alone) can
> easily set one back $300, so I can't fathom what's in there, unless
> everything in it was offered "for use as parts" and completely busted.
> Laying a little cash for capacitors isn't going to restore a "trashed"
> speaker and/or turntable to new condition. I think the ribbons alone
> in my speakers will set me back almost $300 to replace.
Norm:
I paid - in total - $500 for the following items in excellent-or-
better condition:
Revox A720 tuner-pre-amp
Revox A722 power amp.
Pair of Magnepan SMGa speakers
Sony 200 disc changer
Rabco ST-7 TT
At another time, only a very few years ago, $350 got me a Scott LK-150
power-amp, LT-110 Tuner and LC-??? pre-amp each with a complete set of
NIB tubes. I disposed of the tuner and pre-amp in short order (package
deal, all or nothing) covering the cost of the entire deal but I
retained the amp.
There is a LOT of stuff out there, and much of it in remarkably good
condition. All that is required is patience.
Sonnova
(in article <7c6r1dF...@mid.individual.net>):
> Please forgive the top-posting. Please forgive the delay. Please note
> the interpolations.
>
>
> On Jul 2, 8:29ï¿œpm, Casper <amdh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Let me try this again ...
>>
>> One of the things I enjoy about this group are the discussions over
>> various old, or "vintage" equipment. It is often difficult to find
>> information and there is a vast wealth of that here by virtue of the
>> various gereations represented. With that in mind, how many of you
>> believe vintage gear to still be valuable?
>
> Valuable: Sure it is. Well made gear holds some value but junk remains
> junk however 'vintage' it might be. Don't be fooled by mere
> survivorship and age.
Wit some notable exceptions, tube gear holds it's value better than does
solid-state stuff, making SS gear the better value. My tube AR SP-11, for
instance, is still worth more than three grand, but I recently saw a vintage
Crown IC-150 preamp for $20. Nice thing about the Crown, Replace the LM301A
op-amp that came originally in the IC-150 with a new Natty LM4562 (direct
drop-in replacement) and you've just brought this built-like-a-tank piece of
vintage Hi-Fi gear forward 30 years, performance wise. If you don't use the
included (and discrete component) phono preamp, and if the capacitors are in
good shape, this unit will perform as good as just about anything you can buy
today. The LM4562 op-amps are THAT good! Want cheap KILLER hi-fi? Find a good
Crown IC-150, upgrade the op-amps as mentioned above, and buy yourself a
Behringer A500 power amp to go with it. There for about $225, you've got a
preamp and power amp good enough to play with the big-boys. Just don't forget
to clean the IC-150's I/O jacks and the controls.
>
>> Say for example I were a young person starting out today in the
>> delightful hobby of audio, would you recommend vintage gear over new
>> gear? If so, why? What are the pitfalls of vintage gear? What should I
>> expect with vintage gear in terms of sound and equipment quality?
>> Should I be concerned about repairs and replacement parts?
>
> I use almost exclusively vintage gear. My newest piece of serious
> equipment is a 2004-vintage Yamaha CD changer. After which it is a
> long stretch back to the next newest piece - a tuner from c. 1995 or
> so, and active items in the inventory date from the very early 60s.
> The electronics will sound as well as about anything made today at
> about any price. Where evolution has had the greatest efffect (for
> both good and ill) is with speakers - and, as always, where you should
> spend the bulk of your research (and money) as you will realize the
> greatest impact on your system. But - I pretty much always advise
> _AGAINST_ vintage equipment for those individuals who are incapable of
> the required maintenance, cannot do basic repairs or must have others
> do this for them. This can get costly in a hurry. Consider vintage
> equipment in the same light as a vintage automobile. Unless one is
> either skilled or wealthy they do not make very good daily drivers.
> But with those skills (or wealth) can be quite wonderful. This is an
> analogy, not a perfect parallel, of course.
Excellent advice.
<snip>
Fred.
I have fond memories of a MacIntosh tube preamplifier and power
amplifier I had back in the late 60's which I picked up used.
However, though I have no way of running an A-B, I think my second-
best receiver, a low-end 5-channel NAD which I picked up new on
closeout for less than I paid for this pair, used, in 1967 dollars,
outperforms them both in numbers and in subjective sound quality.
I don't doubt that it's possible to put together an excellent vintage
system, but I suspect its easier and cheaper to put together an
excellent contemporary one, particularly since the new HDMI standard
is likely to put some excellent comtemporary equipment on the used
market.
Fred.
Sonnova
(in article <h5i3b...@news3.newsguy.com>):
Well, Fred, there is vintage and then there is vintage. The Macintosh stuff
of which you speak, was, apparently, older than the "late sixties" because
you bought it used then. That meant that it had what was, by modern
standards, a primitive power supply with relatively small filter caps. While
adequate with sine waves, with music, they were marginal if not actually
inadequate. Plus the rest of the gear was populated by carbon resistors
(noisy), and paper capacitors (prone to leakage). I have no doubt that the
later NAD gear outperformed it seven ways to sundown. My point is that it's
possible for a neophyte audiophile to buy used "vintage gear" from the '90's
and get most of the improvements to circuitry that modern gear have,
including beefier power supplies, metal film resistors, modern, low
dielectric-absorbtion polystyrene, mylar, and polypropylene capacitors that
will perform quite well by modern standards. Vintage doesn't have to mean
antique, you know?