vintage gear- 1800- to 1979 maybe 80

[2325fan]

anything made after 1980 shouldnt be considered vintage audio. vintage gear doesnt have remotes, unless they have feet to change stations, volume.

vintage gear is either tubed, an or s.s. not the digital stuff of the 80's an today.

that still to this day ticks me off. things like hey i just scored this killa vintage receiver with working remote. no you scored a killa digital receiver with remote.

notice i said digital? sometimes i just wanna do this :mad2:

also vintage is 2 CHANNEL

[basite]

also vintage is 2 CHANNEL


what about quad? :D

I'd add to the list that something 'vintage', is something with a value too, they made crap back then too, and while it's pre-1980, I wouldn't call that vintage, I'd just call that crap...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[2325fan]

what about quad? :D

I'd add to the list that something 'vintage', is something with a value too, they made crap back then too, and while it's pre-1980, I wouldn't call that vintage, I'd just call that crap...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

didnt forget bout quads- i have a few myself- just dont wanna confuse people. im mainly just tired of people calling the 80's vintage- when in fact ITS NOT!!!!! its newer techonagly.

i dont even come over here that much- i dont bother. i also belong to the other same audio
forum you do. i pop in here once in a GREAT while

[basite]

i dont even come over here that much- i dont bother. i also belong to the other same audio
forum you do. i pop in here once in a GREAT while


indeed, and long time no see here :D

so how is it going over there?

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[2325fan]

the other sits pretty active an busy

[basite]

the other sits pretty active an busy


no, I mean how are you doing :D

I know AK is active, I'm there myself too :D

[2325fan]

oh , lol me yea doin ok just dealing with the heat an the lupus ****
is starting to act up , an getin a little worse.
but other than that working an finding more gear to add
to my collection, i picked up two pioneer sx-1980's this year
both mint an working at full capacity

[budgetaudio76]

wouldnt it be nice if there was a strong vintage following here? i know id be here more.

[Auricauricle]

Can't we find some other term than the prettified, "Vintage"?

Like "esteemed", "period", "classic", or "old, defunct and wonderful"? Keep "vintage" to ports, etc.

[02audionoob]

If the task of moving your receiver doesn't leave you at least a tiny bit sore the next day, it ain't vintage.

[Chas Underhay]

anything made after 1980 shouldnt be considered vintage audio. vintage gear doesnt have remotes, unless they have feet to change stations, volume.

vintage gear is either tubed, an or s.s. not the digital stuff of the 80's an today.



Personally, I wouldn't consider anything designed after 1969 to be vintage and that rules out most if not all Jap gear.

On this side of the pond there were names like Garrard, SME, Thorens, Goldring, Quad, Leak, Radford, Rodgers, Ferrograph, Goodmans, Tannoy, KEF etc. Quite a few of the names are still around so is a lot of the equipment.

By 1969 very high quality sound reproduction was available. If you doubt that, listen to some of the 1960s recordings; they didn't get to sound that good by accidedent.

In my opinion, over the last forty years it hasn't really got that much better; just louder and generally cheaper.

[emaidel]

Personally, I wouldn't consider anything designed after 1969 to be vintage and that rules out most if not all Jap gear.

On this side of the pond there were names like Garrard, SME, Thorens, Goldring, Quad, Leak, Radford, Rodgers, Ferrograph, Goodmans, Tannoy, KEF etc. Quite a few of the names are still around so is a lot of the equipment.

By 1969 very high quality sound reproduction was available. If you doubt that, listen to some of the 1960s recordings; they didn't get to sound that good by accidedent.

In my opinion, over the last forty years it hasn't really got that much better; just louder and generally cheaper.

I suspect I'll be the first of many to reply to this post. For starters, referring to "Jap gear" is a rather nasty, horribly biased slur. Much of the Japanese manufactured equipment of the early 70's ran rings around the American-made products from respected companies like Fisher and Scott. NO Fisher or Scott receiver ever came close, for example, to the performance of the Sansui 4000 in practically any respect, from its full-wave bridge rectifier power supply as well as the luxurious feel of its viscous-damped potentiometers, to its blackout, linear tuning scale. Few companies matched the performance of Luxman gear as well.

Inclulding "Garrard" in a list of respectable names in the industry is like including "Gremlin" in a list of must-have automobiles.

Lastly, there's been a lot of equipment over the last 40 years that is indeed a lot better - and not just louder, and/or cheaper. Think of the names "Threshold," "Krell," Conrad Johnson," Mark Levinson, " "Magneplanar," etc., etc.

[Chas Underhay]

Listen emaidel, before you go politically correct on me; I never said there was anything wrong with Jap gear or indeed Jap bikes or Jap cars, I just said I didn't consider it vintage. To me, 1970s Jap gear is the start of modern gear in the same way as a 1960s Norton Commando is a vintage bike; it's of a bygone age but a 1970s Honda is the start of the modern bikes. Of course, the Honda is a lot better than the Norton but is it vintage and is it more desirable?

Garrard made a range of turntables and don't forget in those days all bottom of the range turntables were cr@p. Garrard's top of the range turntables were very good and many are still in use. Just type "Garrard 401" into a search enging if you don't believe me.

What exactly do you mean by "a lot better"? Have you ever heard quality equipment from the 1960s that's working correctly to full factory specification playing a good 1060s recording? I can assure you that it can sound very good indeed. For example a Garrard 401 with an SME arm, Decca cartridge, Quad or Leak amplification and Quad electrostatic speakers. If you have never heard such a system, you may well be very supprised.

I'm not saying that a lot of modern equipment isn't "even better" but I said that by 1969 high quality sound reproduction was available (albeit at a high price) so I'll stand by my statement that "it hasn't really got that much better". Not like the difference between 1960s cars and modern cars!

As for "louder and generally cheaper" well, in the 1960s 25 watts would have been very good and 50 watts would have been an absolute monster but now 200 watts or more is common place and where a systen such as I have described above will still impress today, a good modern budget system will walk all over a budget system of the 1960s and now become quite (sometimes very) close to a quality system. These are the two areas where the biggest improvements have been made rather than in ultimate sound quality

[emaidel]

I'm not Japanese, but if, by being offended by your continuing use of the term "Jap" that I'm being "politically correct," then so be it. And I'm proud to be so. Such a term has long been out of favor, and is blatantly tasteless, no matter what product category is being referred to.

I'm well aware of how good equipment sounded in the 60's - I sold it then, and I sold it through the 90's too, so I'm also aware of what got better. Companies like Adcom, NAD, Parasound, Rotel and others made (and still make) some pretty terrific stuff that significantly outperforms much of the late 60's gear.

Insofar as powerful amps, speakers like the Dahlquist DQ-10 (another 70's product, obvously not worthy of serious consideration according to your standards) sings when driven by a powerful amplifier, and sounds pretty awful when driven by something smaller. My Adcom GFA-5800 delivers 250 watts per channel into 8 ohms, and 400 watts into 4. Does that mean that all it's good for is playing louder? Of course not: it sounds better at the same listening levels when compared to a less powerful amplifier when driving inefficient loudspeakers (such as the DQ-10).

Lastly, Garrard's 401 may still be considered a quality product, but none of the so-called "Automatic Transcription turntables" from the late 60's through the 70's was worth one's spit.

[Chas Underhay]

emaidel,you are nit picking, I never set out to discuss what gear is good and what gear isn't good; I set out to define what I personally considered as "vintage" equipment

If you find terms like "Jap gear" or "Jap bike" offensive; it's your problem and you really should try and get out more because it wasn't intended to be. I certianly wouldn't find terms like "Brit" or "Brit kit" offensive and I'm English. In fact I don't even give a monkeys if a Yank calls me a Limey or an Aussie calls me a Pom. I don't do politically correct!

[emaidel]

If you find terms like "Jap gear" or "Jap bike" offensive; it's your problem and you really should try and get out more . I don't do politically correct!

I'll just let these statements speak for themselves.

[Chas Underhay]

Following your typical "media spin" type edit of my quotation, I presume you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the definition of vintage equipment!

[FredrickVegas]

I am new here as well as being new to collecting and using Vintage equipment but I will have to say that I have learned something from this post...my Dahlquist DQ-10's are good speakers (thrift store find for $5.00) and I was wondering why they did not sound so good on my Denon DRA-835R, they need more power. Something good comes from everything if you look for it...

[Brian Levy]

I don't hang here but I got a spam private e-mail so came to read it. Came across this thread and want to correct the creator shooting down his concept of vintage cutoff.Not having a remote is not a differentiator of vintage Fisher made a tube tuner with a remote as well as a full line of receivers in the '60s to very early '70s. Of course then the is the remote on the Revox A-77 as well as many other reel to reels. Someone posting a nib Fisher 500TX with remote would tick you off?

There are several audio periods we need to consider:
Pre-ac powered radios
Pre-motor record players
Pre-WWI equipment
Early post -WWII equipment prior to the LP
Post WW-II tube units
Post stereo tube units prior to SS
Post multiplex tube period
Bridge period between the introduction of SS and the last US tube unit production by major US companies
SS period of US produced SS units
Post digital tuner period
Post digital audio period

This is from a US perspective of course.

There are no bright lines for vintage since today the digital audio period is old enough that we could classify early CD players as vintage.

Vintage is different things to different persons. For me, for many years is ws pre-WWII units, then later mono and then later that period when the US manufacturers were still producing units in the US and lastly prior to digital tuners. More recently, I'm beginning to look at about the 1st to 2nd gen CD players.

While the US audio industry forever changed with broad importation of Japanese and Korean units, it had been happening from not long after WW-II and even to a lesser extent before WW-II. During the Korean war many returning GIs brought Japanese units back and the flood gates opened during the Viet Nam conflict. As to whether or not the units "ran rings" around US units may or may not be true. I'd agree that the imports quickly made the lo-end unattractive to the US makers.

As to it has to be of value is generally not a criteria as value is personal. For some collectors McIntosh has no value for others Lloyds is very collectible as is Soundesign, Radio Shack, matchbook covers, Cracker Jack freebies. Personal bias can not come into the criteria.

As to 2-channel being a criteria would eliminate many fine stereo pieces that included the center channel using either a mixed mono with 2 amps or through a 3rd amp. This goes back to the earliest days of stereo. There there is quadrophonic grouping using a matrix derived from stereo with only 2 amps such as the Dynaqud system used by Dyna, EICO, Heath, Sherwood, and many others as well as SQ and other systems. Oh, and do not forget discrete 4-channel.

What does it all mean? Who knows. Maybe we should think of:
Mono
Analog stereo excluding mutiplex
Analog stereo post multiplex
Post tube to digital tuner
Post digital audio

As periods.

Of course for the purist, there is the pre-Berloiz period when the Edison cylinder was king.

[02audionoob]

It silently drives me up the wall to see someone list some 80's low-end mass-market junk on craigslist and call it "vintage"...especially when they have the gall to ask $200 for a "vintage" Soundesign rack system.

[Feanor]

anything made after 1980 shouldnt be considered vintage audio. vintage gear doesnt have remotes, unless they have feet to change stations, volume.

vintage gear is either tubed, an or s.s. not the digital stuff of the 80's an today.

that still to this day ticks me off. things like hey i just scored this killa vintage receiver with working remote. no you scored a killa digital receiver with remote.

notice i said digital? sometimes i just wanna do this :mad2:

also vintage is 2 CHANNEL

I agree that "vintage" is best reserved for pre-1980. As noted, "quadraphonic" was very much of that era, and most Japanese makers produced "quad" receivers in the '70s.

Pre-1980 characteristics include:

Discrete components, that is, few or no integrated circuit chips or opp amps. Printed circuit boards, on the other hand, were common by the '70s though they mounted discrete components. The good new that is that discrete components can usually be replaced if they fail, which isn't the case for old ICs.
Metal construction mostly, with relatively few plastic parts.
"Silver" or champagne-colour front panels rather than black, (though black anodized had begun to appear by the end of the era).
Prevalence of rotary selection knobs or toggle switches over mechanical push-bottons, and of course, no electrical contact switches.
Analog tuning and anlog tuning dials in tuners and receivers.
No digital displays, (though some florescent power-level displays turned up towards the end of the era).
No remote controls.
An unfortunate trend from the mid-'70s was towards very large cabinets, "giganticism" as I called it. A rack-mount, (19"), width became common along with larger than really necessary cabinets. Early examples were from Phase Linear and SAE with their preamps, etc.. Other makers followed, including the Japanese marques. Interestingly the "gigantic" trend was followed by a mini or compact components.All this said there were some very nice post-1980 components made. Checkout The Vintage Knob (http://www.thevintageknob.org/).