New AV Receiver vs Old School

[Ronnie55]

Anyone ever had a chance to listen to a newer A/V receiver/amp against a 1970's Pioneer or another brand from that era in 2 channel?

Might surprise some that the 1970's amp will blow it out of the water, even if the AV is 500w and the old school is 50w...IMO

[t-lor]

what do you mean by  "blow it out of the water ?"/

just volume   ? 

 

Cause both would be more than enough sound to start a fight with the neigbours.

and those 500W is divided bij 7 channels so thats not that different if you only use 2

[emosun]

that would be highly subjective unless you have listened to every new sound generating device on earth that has been made between january 1st 1980 and now which is quite impressive.

Btw i use a 1972 sansui and even I'm not going to pretend that just because it's good doesn't mean nothing better was made afterward.

[Alex Atkin UK]

In 2 speaker mode?  Sure that wouldn't surprise me, as what sounds good isn't necessarily what's accurate to the source.

 

Everyone has a different preference to the sound profile, why so many love tube amps and why equalisers exist.  They change the sound to be more pleasant, even when that's completely inaccurate to how it was mastered.

 

Good example is I NEVER listen in stereo, I prefer Pro Logic IIz to expand the sound stage into the whole room, simulating an Atmos effect.  Purists on the other hand would drag me over the coals for that, while simultaneously using a tube amp that colours the sound.  Its just so very subjective and really doesn't matter so long as it sounds good to you.

[Ronnie55]

I'm talking about if you are able to, lay back  with eyes closed and let someone play each amp with some of your favorite tunes and volume level that you like.

Then decide which if either sounds the best...I'm not trying to say the new stuff is junk or anything...I have a newer AVr for my HT setup

[manikyath]

i run a 1960s amplifier for my music, and... it's defenately a choice you make.

 

a modern day device will defenately do a much better job at accurate reproduction, have a lower noise floor, not suffer from scratchy potentiometers, and have propper grounding on the chassis.

 

but.. if you enjoy the early days of electronic music, IMO there is no better way to enjoy it than a period-correct amplifier.

that also implies that if you enjoy your J. Biebz and Medical Dré it is going to be closer to what the creator invisioned on a modern day device.

 

different devices for different purposes and preferences. it's almost like this entire audio stuff is subjective...

[Alex Atkin UK]

8 minutes ago, manikyath said:

but.. if you enjoy the early days of electronic music, IMO there is no better way to enjoy it than a period-correct amplifier.

that also implies that if you enjoy your J. Biebz and Medical Dré it is going to be closer to what the creator invisioned on a modern day device.

 

different devices for different purposes and preferences. it's almost like this entire audio stuff is subjective...

There is definitely music which when reproduced on modern kit sounds worse, because it was designed around what people were playing it back on the time.

 

Same as the annoying loudness wars with music mastered with compressed dynamics so people can enjoy it on the train, but sounds quite poor on a good home system.

[Blue4130]

30 minutes ago, Ronnie55 said:

I'm talking about if you are able to, lay back  with eyes closed and let someone play each amp with some of your favorite tunes and volume level that you like.

Then decide which if either sounds the best...I'm not trying to say the new stuff is junk or anything...I have a newer AVr for my HT setup

It's quite a sweeping generalization to put a blanket statement like "old stuff will blow the new stuff out of the water" I've heard plenty of shit older amps and really decent new amps. Also vice versa.

[Ronnie55]

I forgot to mention about the only audio place left near me is Best Buy, all the older higher end audio shops have closed years ago...May be one or two left few hours away in Tulsa..not sure. I have listen to some newer JBL Studio 590's speakers and they did sound excellent...very bright

[tikker]

On 9/7/2022 at 11:57 PM, Ronnie55 said:

I'm talking about if you are able to, lay back  with eyes closed and let someone play each amp with some of your favorite tunes and volume level that you like.

Then decide which if either sounds the best...I'm not trying to say the new stuff is junk or anything...I have a newer AVr for my HT setup

The biggest possible difference that would spring to mind are period-appropriate aspects as @manikyath mentions. The stuff of the time may either hide imperfections that modern units reveal or simply work better with it like how retro games can just look better on CRTs because they were designed to look good on them and not modern LCDs.

 

Out of curiousity, have you tried such a (double) blind test? Music is rather subjective. If you merely think the old amplifier will sound better and you know which one is the old unit then it will probably sound better to you, as our brains use our expectations and prior knowledge to tweak how we perceive things.

[dalekphalm]

On 9/7/2022 at 5:15 PM, Ronnie55 said:

Anyone ever had a chance to listen to a newer A/V receiver/amp against a 1970's Pioneer or another brand from that era in 2 channel?

Might surprise some that the 1970's amp will blow it out of the water, even if the AV is 500w and the old school is 50w...IMO

This is a very generic blanket statement that is almost certainly not true in all situations.

 

Older amps can sound very good - but so can newer amps. It's all about the relative quality - not even about the wattage the amp supplies. Getting a cheap amp that supports high wattage is a lot easier now than it was in the 1970's.

 

But if you use an actual high end amp and compare it to a high end amp from the 70's, I'd be surprised if the older one sounded better.

[cmndr]

On balance, new gear sounds better, is cheaper and will last longer.

There are arguments to be made that older gear pairs better with older gear and that audio content was mastered with the imperfections of older gear in mind, but I'd argue that these factors are fairly minute in the grand scheme of things.

Modern AVRs do often cram in a lot of stuff into the boxes. There are certainly cases where older AVRs (think higher end 2 channel units from the 1990s) will do a better job for 2 channel set ups than a modern AVR (that's designed around handling say 12 speakers, not 2) but... not by much. If you're worried about amplification and signal processing, you're at the point where you're splitting hairs. You really shouldn't worry about that stuff until after you've got your room set up well (lots of absorption and diffusion, speakers that are well positioned, everything tested by using a calibrated microphone in multiple positions, etc.).

I want to emphasize that once you've got "not bad" speakers, amps and DSPs, room effects will usually dominate the sound signature. Sound waves reflecting off walls and cancelling out frequencies... literally kill your sound. This matters WAY more than having a 0.001% more accurate amp. The amp wars of 50 years ago are mostly over because... the average person can't appreciate the difference and the average enthusiast with a blindfold on probably can't either. Moving your head 2" and getting different sound reflections off the walls will probably dominate the impact of a "near perfect amp" and a merely "very good amp".

 

 

On 9/8/2022 at 3:40 AM, Ronnie55 said:

I forgot to mention about the only audio place left near me is Best Buy, all the older higher end audio shops have closed years ago...May be one or two left few hours away in Tulsa..not sure. I have listen to some newer JBL Studio 590's speakers and they did sound excellent...very bright

The 590s are like... a decade old, so they're not exactly cutting edge. (they're still serviceable though, most of the improvements in audio in the last 20 years have been in lowering costs and miniaturization, not raising the fidelity ceiling)

Also you can often "fix" a good chunk of brightness via DSP or via fiddling with toe-in.

This isn't the SAME speaker but I'd assume that the 590 and the 530 have the same tweeters so similar sound profiles for the highs. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/jbl-studio-530-speaker-review.12298/

The main difference between the 590s and 530s should be in the mids and lows (also the bigger towers can play louder which is nice if you're in a HUGE room), though any bass head should probably be using 2 or more subwoofers anyway (which will dig deeper, more accurately and allow for better positioning and/or DSP based tweaking.)

[Ronnie55]

I run JBL L100T's for my front speakers and JBL 530's for rear,,some pioneers for the atmos speakers. And my 100w 40 year old Yamaha will drive the L100T's with ease (2channel) while the Pioneer VSX-1131 avr struggles, Only reason I run the L100T's is because I have no sub..no need for one with the those...I really didn't mean to make it sound like the new stuff is junk, but like I said only using Best Buy...They did have some Klipsch but they must be bottom line, didn't sound like Klipsch I remember