Can someone explain this to me????

[Worf101]

Okay, I'm not one of those crusty ole farts that says "everything in my day was better than the junk they sell today" but this is pretty obvious at least to my ears. I listen to a lot of music at my computer system at home. In the mornings and at night I run my Sennheiser 580's from the front of my amps. I'm running two amps to power 6 speakers at this time, The fronts and a couple of rears are being run by an Onkyo 575 in All Channel Mode, a seperate set of rears are being run by a 30 year old Akai 1030 Stereo Receiver when games need that 4 channel feel. When I plug headphones into both they natrually run in "stereo" mode. I've listened to a lot of music on both receivers and hands down the Akai kicks the Onkyo's ass.

I know the 575 is base model but dayum is it supposed to be that obvious? I don't even think the Akai's a world class receiver but it's killing the Onkyo easily!! Greater clarity, headroom, detail and a lot less hiss and no dolby blanket. Am I nuts are was stuff really that much better back then???!!!!

Just askin....

Da Worfster

[Bill L]

I don't know about all the stuff being good back then but there must have been a few really good receivers. My neighbor in '76 had a Kenwood receiver with Bozak speakers and Philips turntable that would clean house at best buy or good guys these days. It took a lot more income to buy back then though.

[woodman]

Worf:
I don't think that the audio world has gone backwards over the last 30 years - quite the contrary, the technology has been steadily moving forward. The one factor that's working against some of today's componentry is the industry's obsession with producing more full-featured products at prices that are in direct contradiction to the effects of inflation that affect most everything else we buy! While the prices for cars, houses, health care, insurance, clothing, furniture, food, etc. have been steadily rising, consumer electronics have held the pricing pretty much in line with what they were 30 years ago! If, as you say, your 30 year old Akai receiver outperforms the Onkyo that's only a couple of years old, I'd suspect that the Onkyo is defective in some way ... not operating "up to snuff". Of course you must realize that you're not comparing them on a level playing field if you were playing the Onkyo in "All-Channel mode" which the Akai is obviously not capable of. Just my take on the matter.

BillL:
I must correct your point about component pricing costing more "back then". The Kenwood receiver line back in 1976 ran from $180 to $450. The Bozak speakers were priced from $99 to $1110. The Philips turntables cost $99 to $299. So, those components were not more expensive - they were less (but not by much). Just thought you'd like to know this. And as good as those units you cited were, they were most definitely NOT so vastly superior to today's models as your (faulty) memory has served them up for you ... sorry.

[Chuck]

Okay, I'm not one of those crusty ole farts that says "everything in my day was better than the junk they sell today"

How can you be sure?

[vivisimonvi]

My dad had this 70's Sansui receiver collecting dust for over a decade until I discovered this unit one day in the attic (looks like a piece of crap, must sound like crap too right?). One day I hooked it up these crap 15 watt Magnavox speakers... Good gawd they sounded sooo much better and livelier driven by the 25 wpc Sansui compared to my 150 wpc Pioneer A88x power-amp.

The signals from the Sansui really made the woofers flex more with bass response, while the Pioneer amp didn't do much (they did go loud, but with almost no bass). I seriously question if amplifiers are more important than the speakers themselves. I don't remember what model the Sansui was but it's something like QRX-4500 (4-channel receiver). I regret giving away this receiver...

[kelsci]

Worfster; I remember Akai putting out a line of stereo receivers I think in the late 1970s. The two units respectfully put out 40 and 60 watts per channel. I know that both units maximum distortion were in the triple digits; I think the 40 had possibly .008 and the 60 had .005. I have never heard a receiver at any price over the years put out the sound quality of these two units; natural and crystal clear. All the other manufacturers that had units in the showroom sounded like mud compared to these units. I never saw Akai put out units with this low distortion again.

[kexodusc]

Dammit if you don't come up with some good ones!

I picked up an old Pioneer stereo receiver from late 70's early 80's by the looks of it that I bought in a pawn shop a few years back...It's in my garage right now. This thing is ugly as they come, and the control labels are all in German, but dammit this thing sings.
I think it's only 30 or 40 watts per channel, and it only has the basic bass and treble tone controls on it (and balance of course), not much in the way of connections either.
I have no idea what it would retail for back in its heyday, but I'm pretty confident it was worth every penny.
I find alot of brands over the years have introduced new product lines aimed at keeping costs low which audiophiles often label as "junk" or "cheap". Certainly the Pioneer receivers I see at Best Buy don't have the same heavy, solid feel to them as mine. I think this trend might be skewing our perception of equipment getting "cheaper, or worse". I'm pretty sure Pioneer's "Elite" line is far superior to this unit based on comments people have made to me (never tested one). Afterall, the HT boom wasn't around back then to lend entry level equipment a hand via mass-production benefits.
Just goes to show though we can find some Diamonds in the rough, though.

[Worf101]

Worf:
I don't think that the audio world has gone backwards over the last 30 years - quite the contrary, the technology has been steadily moving forward. The one factor that's working against some of today's componentry is the industry's obsession with producing more full-featured products at prices that are in direct contradiction to the effects of inflation that affect most everything else we buy! While the prices for cars, houses, health care, insurance, clothing, furniture, food, etc. have been steadily rising, consumer electronics have held the pricing pretty much in line with what they were 30 years ago! If, as you say, your 30 year old Akai receiver outperforms the Onkyo that's only a couple of years old, I'd suspect that the Onkyo is defective in some way ... not operating "up to snuff". Of course you must realize that you're not comparing them on a level playing field if you were playing the Onkyo in "All-Channel mode" which the Akai is obviously not capable of. Just my take on the matter.

But this difference is most audible when I'm running HEADPHONES!! It just shouldn't be that big a disparity between these two receiver. Maybe the Onkyo, which I've never had a problem with by the way, is defective in the headphone area but I'm not sure... Both receivers are roughly the same size but the Akai is hefty and solid, twice the weight of the Onkyo. True it only has to do one thing instead of other things but it is soinically inferior to a 30 plus year old amp that doesn't even have CD-inputs. I'm amazed.

Da Worfster

[Chuck]

My dad had this 70's Sansui receiver collecting dust for over a decade until I discovered this unit one day in the attic (looks like a piece of crap, must sound like crap too right?). One day I hooked it up these crap 15 watt Magnavox speakers... Good gawd they sounded sooo much better and livelier driven by the 25 wpc Sansui compared to my 150 wpc Pioneer A88x power-amp.

The signals from the Sansui really made the woofers flex more with bass response, while the Pioneer amp didn't do much (they did go loud, but with almost no bass). I seriously question if amplifiers are more important than the speakers themselves. I don't remember what model the Sansui was but it's something like QRX-4500 (4-channel receiver). I regret giving away this receiver...

LOL, I was just pickin' at the Worfster, 'cause he thinks he's not an old-fart.

[thepogue]

your a crusty ole fart....but you just dont know it!

see easy as pie!! see ya crusty

[Worf101]

your a crusty ole fart....but you just dont know it!

see easy as pie!! see ya crusty

Pbbbbst!!!! Ya'll kin kiss my rusty, crusty ole butt!!!!!

Philistines!!!!!

Da "lucky for you I gotta sense o humor" Worfster

Good one's fellahs!!!! Keep it up!!!

[RGA]

Why would you assume that old is worse. Cetainly new can be better and I have heard many prime examples and to be certain a lot of old stuff was horrendously horrendously vile on the ears. Many older products are superior...many old old designs are still being made new - revamped perhaps - but still an old design - and thriving and iMO vastly bettering a lot of the NEW marketing hyped technology.

You're mileage will vary - look for value.

[gonefishin]

Worf...I'd have to agree with you. I'll also lay down a crisp new dollar bill that says your new receiver is working just fine (well...as fine as it can). Alot of the newer low cost receivers coming out nowadays do sound like crap. Weak, thin, no dynamics...blah blah blah.


there are a good number of people into vintage equipment at audiokarma.org...check it out sometime.

take care>>>>>>>>>

[dmb_fan]

Woodman-

What Bill L said was that it "took a lot more income to buy [audio products] back then, though." And he's absolutely correct. If your figures about Kenwood receivers in 1976 are correct, then at $180, an entry level receiver cost about 1.4% of the US median household income of $12,686. Compare that with an entry level receiver today at $180 which amounts to .42% of the 2002 US median household income of $42,409. Compared to median income, an entry level receiver was more than three times as expensive in 1976. As a percentage of income, that two channel receiver in 1976 selling for $180 would now sell for over $600.

You're correct that audio products have gotten cheaper in real dollars since the 70's. But that directly contradicts your assertion that audio gear was not more expensive back then. It was.

The major difference I see between then and now is the increase in the number of products marketted for absurd prices. Today we see ads for $200,000 speakers and $10,000 CD players. My impression of the market in 1976 is that these types of items weren't on the map yet. Then again, if there's a sucker born every minute, there's been about 15,000,000 suckers born since 1976. ;^)

Best,
Adam

[Woochifer]

Since what you're observing is coming through in the headphones, the difference would obviously not be in the amp section. Keep in mind that a lot of it could have to do with the default states in the preamp sections. The Akais of that era probably used a pure analog preamp section, whereas the Onkyo is digital. Typically, vintage analog preamps patch the signal through a flank of tone controls, filters, loudness switches, level controls, and other signal altering passes. Even in the default positions, the signal getting passed from switch to switch may not exactly be transparent since the "zero state" of an analog control might be a tad off. Unless that Akai has a bypass available, what you're observing might simply be a little bit of coloration that got applied with all those switches that the signal needs to pass through.

The Onkyo of course is a different animal in that it takes an analog signal, converts it to digital, applies any processing in the digital domain, and then reconverts it to analog prior to getting sent to amplifier section. If my recollection of that model is correct, the tone and volume controls are all digital, so if any colorations get introduced into the mix, they're of a different variety.

My wife used to use an Onkyo TX-DS515, so I'm pretty familiar with that unit at least. In general, I thought that the headphone output from that unit sounded noticeably different from an older stereo Yamaha receiver that I was using. (From having to repair the headphone jack on that unit, I can also tell you that it was very flimsy construction and used a thin ribbon cable) But, that Yamaha also had a variable loudness contour with no bypass available.

If you're talking about the amp sections, the thing with multichannel receivers is that they are held to a looser standard with how the specs are reported and tested. Mono and stereo amps and receivers are required to report their specs according to the FTC standard test, which specfies wide bandwidth test tones, 8 ohms impedance, AND the capacity to sustain the power output for more than just a microsecond. Looking back on my days as a Stereo Review subscriber, I never saw a receiver that failed to meet its rated spec in bench tests, and very often the actual output exceeded the specs. Multichannel units do not have to be tested at this standard, and in fact, are not even required to be tested with all channels driven. So, anytime you see a spec that says "100 watts x 6 channels" it does not necessarily mean 600 watts of total simultaneous output, and most of the time falls well short of that. That's why in so many of these all channels driven tests, the actual output is so far below what the spec sheets imply.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Okay, I'm not one of those crusty ole farts that says "everything in my day was better than the junk they sell today" but this is pretty obvious at least to my ears. I listen to a lot of music at my computer system at home. In the mornings and at night I run my Sennheiser 580's from the front of my amps. I'm running two amps to power 6 speakers at this time, The fronts and a couple of rears are being run by an Onkyo 575 in All Channel Mode, a seperate set of rears are being run by a 30 year old Akai 1030 Stereo Receiver when games need that 4 channel feel. When I plug headphones into both they natrually run in "stereo" mode. I've listened to a lot of music on both receivers and hands down the Akai kicks the Onkyo's ass.

I know the 575 is base model but dayum is it supposed to be that obvious? I don't even think the Akai's a world class receiver but it's killing the Onkyo easily!! Greater clarity, headroom, detail and a lot less hiss and no dolby blanket. Am I nuts are was stuff really that much better back then???!!!!

Just askin....

Da Worfster

Ya may not be crusty, but you are a ole fart(snicker) Worfster, keep in mind, that stereo receiver is an all analog receiver. No A/D-D/A conversion. There could be a different input sensitivity, larger power supply, more isolated chassis, or a hundred million other variables that different price points can represent. Remember, back in the days when Akai was in the recievers market, nobody was really clammering for much for cheap.

Also consider what the receiver now has in its guts(in terms of processing) in comparison to a reciever made in the eighties. Its almost no contest. Today's receivers are asked to do things that recievers thirty years ago couldn't have even dreamed of. Dts, DD, DLP , DPL II, Neo:6, logic 7, Dts 6.1, Dolby 5.1+1, THX 5.1+2, and the beat goes on. Since no receiver thirty years ago had these demands to meet, then they have a unfair advantage IMO when compared to todays receivers.

[Debbi]

....in back of garage for years, 55 and 35 watts repectively....dug them out and hooked them to Klipsch RB5s, which are the speakers I am most familiar with now....My observation was that they did not sound as good as my present Yamaha and Denon receivers with cd .WIth phono, the performance was poor. They did bias the volume controls back then so that at the 25% level (or about 9 o clock), they were putting out most of the volume and there was virtually nothing left beyond the 12 oclock position, which was the way they made people think they were powerful in those days. Hence they impressed you at what you thought was low volume.The RMS standard of power has been around since the late 60s so that argument of comparison is nonsense. The one area where they were better was the FM tuner which got excellent reception with the supplied $.02 wire.....fm was very important back then and about 50% of what people listened to. In most cases, the old stuff is irrelevant, since since it is analog and simply wont provide the functions needed today and lack necessry inputs and outputs.....sooooooo......unless you are a two channel fm freak, I dont know why anyone would pay a premium price for the old stuff....having said that,I can see where the cosmetics of the old stuff ( wood cases, moving vu meters etal) may give some people a nostalgic rush the same way old cars with wood shifters and Borg Warner guages do.I gave my two units to the poor to make room for beach chairs in my garage...

[spacedeckman]

1) Older stuff was built better because it was more expensive. Go to the website for the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. They have a CPI calculator that says that $1 in 1975 was worth $3.42 in 2003 money. For mathematical purposes, a $200 entry level receiver would cost $700 in todays money. $700 today buys you a really nice receiver, but, spend the money only on two channels of amplification and a good tuner and you have a winner. Granted, some of these newer high dollar receivers may sound better overall, but none of them will drive the speaker loads the oldies will, nor play them as loud. They were built better because they were expensive. There are some economies of scale today that didn't exist back then, and improvements in automation, but still, you get the picture.

2) $700 is a lot of money today, as $200 was in 1975

3) Many features (like tuners and phono stages) are really cheaped out on new receivers because they are seen as "extras" and not germain to todays normal activities.

4) People would buy a 30 watt amplifier in 1975.

[jeskibuff]

In my college days in the late 70s, I had a Sansui 8080 receiver, which put out 85 watts per side. It sounded great to my ears.

For some reason (upgraditis?), I sold it and many months later found a Sansui 9090 brand new for an appetizing price. I jumped on it. Shouldn't 110 w/ch sound better than 85? Imagine my disappointment when it sounded not better, but VERY inferior to the 8080, by my recollection. I think there were gems and turds produced back then, in this case by the same company - Sansui! There are gems and turds produced today. To compare an antique gem to a modern turd does not provide conclusive evidence that today's equipment is inferior to that of yesteryear's.

Of course, others disagree and I wasn't able to do an A-B comparison of the units. Maybe it was just my imagination, but I don't think so. The 9090 seems to have gotten high praise on this site:
http://www.audioreview.com/Receivers...3_1593crx.aspx

[Worf101]

Since what you're observing is coming through in the headphones, the difference would obviously not be in the amp section. Keep in mind that a lot of it could have to do with the default states in the preamp sections. The Akais of that era probably used a pure analog preamp section, whereas the Onkyo is digital. Typically, vintage analog preamps patch the signal through a flank of tone controls, filters, loudness switches, level controls, and other signal altering passes. Even in the default positions, the signal getting passed from switch to switch may not exactly be transparent since the "zero state" of an analog control might be a tad off. Unless that Akai has a bypass available, what you're observing might simply be a little bit of coloration that got applied with all those switches that the signal needs to pass through.

The Onkyo of course is a different animal in that it takes an analog signal, converts it to digital, applies any processing in the digital domain, and then reconverts it to analog prior to getting sent to amplifier section. If my recollection of that model is correct, the tone and volume controls are all digital, so if any colorations get introduced into the mix, they're of a different variety.

My wife used to use an Onkyo TX-DS515, so I'm pretty familiar with that unit at least. In general, I thought that the headphone output from that unit sounded noticeably different from an older stereo Yamaha receiver that I was using. (From having to repair the headphone jack on that unit, I can also tell you that it was very flimsy construction and used a thin ribbon cable) But, that Yamaha also had a variable loudness contour with no bypass available.

If you're talking about the amp sections, the thing with multichannel receivers is that they are held to a looser standard with how the specs are reported and tested. Mono and stereo amps and receivers are required to report their specs according to the FTC standard test, which specfies wide bandwidth test tones, 8 ohms impedance, AND the capacity to sustain the power output for more than just a microsecond. Looking back on my days as a Stereo Review subscriber, I never saw a receiver that failed to meet its rated spec in bench tests, and very often the actual output exceeded the specs. Multichannel units do not have to be tested at this standard, and in fact, are not even required to be tested with all channels driven. So, anytime you see a spec that says "100 watts x 6 channels" it does not necessarily mean 600 watts of total simultaneous output, and most of the time falls well short of that. That's why in so many of these all channels driven tests, the actual output is so far below what the spec sheets imply.

Hmmm your responses seem to make sense both physically and monetarily. I wasn't in the hobby back when the Akai was made. I do remember lusting after everyones beautiful Marantz receivers and AR4's and sech. I didn't honestly know that today's digital receivers converted everything to digital signal. Interesting I don't know what's doing the DAC conversion in the case of the computer. It's either the cheap DVD/CD player itself or the expensive sound card. I'm not sure. Well, since there are real physical reasons for what I'm hearing... thanks for the explanation.

Da Worfster

[Worf101]

Ya may not be crusty, but you are a ole fart(snicker) Worfster, keep in mind, that stereo receiver is an all analog receiver. No A/D-D/A conversion. There could be a different input sensitivity, larger power supply, more isolated chassis, or a hundred million other variables that different price points can represent. Remember, back in the days when Akai was in the recievers market, nobody was really clammering for much for cheap.

Also consider what the receiver now has in its guts(in terms of processing) in comparison to a reciever made in the eighties. Its almost no contest. Today's receivers are asked to do things that recievers thirty years ago couldn't have even dreamed of. Dts, DD, DLP , DPL II, Neo:6, logic 7, Dts 6.1, Dolby 5.1+1, THX 5.1+2, and the beat goes on. Since no receiver thirty years ago had these demands to meet, then they have a unfair advantage IMO when compared to todays receivers.

I really never thought about the "advancements" inherent in those two receivers. I didn't give much thought about how we ask the modern AV receiver to "do more with less". In that we are it doesn't make sense that modern AV receiver's are held to the same rigorous standards of the old school gear.... Sigh. Well, I won't beat up on the Onkyo anymore. I'll probably swap it out for something better soon though...

Da Worfster.....

PS, don't think I didn't catch that "old fart" crack either...

[Woochifer]

Hmmm your responses seem to make sense both physically and monetarily. I wasn't in the hobby back when the Akai was made. I do remember lusting after everyones beautiful Marantz receivers and AR4's and sech. I didn't honestly know that today's digital receivers converted everything to digital signal. Interesting I don't know what's doing the DAC conversion in the case of the computer. It's either the cheap DVD/CD player itself or the expensive sound card. I'm not sure. Well, since there are real physical reasons for what I'm hearing... thanks for the explanation.

Da Worfster

Wow! I made sense! That's a first!

I grew up with a Marantz 2275 and in a comparison with my two-channel Yammie, it was noticeably different. Given the imposing row of buttons and switches on that Marantz (Low Filter, High Filter, Multipath, Loudness, Dolby FM, a tone selector with six different crossover positions), the analog signal got routed through quite a few 'hoods before it made its way into the amp section. With all that analog circuitry on board, no wonder why that thing weighs 45 lbs.!

Not all digital receivers convert everything to digital, but pretty much anything that requires any kind of signal processing like DPL or the DSP effects will indeed get converted to digital first. If the receiver uses pure digital volume controls (rather than analog hybrids) or if you have the bass management engaged, then it's a good bet that all of the analog signals get converted to digital first. Only when you got a two-channel source with the speakers set to Large and the effects off is there any likelihood that the signal gets sent to the amp in an unaltered analog form.

What you hear with your computer depends on what kind of signal you're feeding it. I seriously doubt that a sound card would bother with any kind of an analog bypass, so the only question is whether the signal gets an A/D conversion first.

[amcfreek]

ok so im one of those poor old farts {passing gas right now to prove it} ok so im still thirty something , back in high school{early 80's} had a scott r31s thata freind alighned the fm on it when i blew an output ..he fixed it right on his bench that played till the fifth set of lamps went , no words are visible by the volume bass, treb bal controls ... well times have changed but im too poor to actually afford the second hand stuff i have now/ dennon, carver/crown .. old sansui stuff , a sansui 901 reciever,, wanna see speakers get deep fry'd , ive exploded crossover caps , watched a few crossovers coils heatshrink smoke both on older kenwoods with 15 inch drivers , demonstrated how a set of killed marantz midrange;s can catch fire .... yeah it has some snot..but i have a huge lets say stash of vintage audio gear ive collected from being a junk picker {eaven from being age 13 and building an auto 8track player into a box with 2 6x9's and nicad battery's ..take that to school , let frank zappa loose @5 watts a channel in a hallway in 197x was something they talked to my pearants about }when that wasnt strapped to mmy bycicle

but thier actually seams to be a market for some of this older stuff , if its clean not a bused and sometimes working ... parts is parts ..
infact you can ask my neighbor about what a set of old sansui' sp 2500 speakers sound like at 100w a channel ,bringing then home .. i had them hooked up on my back seat had my old 5$ profile 200/perside amp in the trunk , you could actually hit the sub filter and it sounded like a set of subs ... yeah they only handle 90w rms or so .. but my neighbors sony surround sound gets drowned out .. shortly after a demonstration .. he stopped anoying the neighbor hood , in his usual drunken state with his country music blarein ...
i mean i have some better stuff here , but they were cheap and convienent ,, and did the trick .. the mids are really open when you hit 100w!
i live in a remote coal mining town in ne pa , half a double ..surrounded by idiots ...

i did however pay a 185 dollar fine for leaving my stereo on , at like 250 mono into 2 12's and like 3 old recievers stacked .. this was in my sperated garage .. old fart evil neighbor wont leave me alone .stalks harasses me .hes cooled down a bit but ... i 'm almost ready to pay another fine if they can catch me with it on at 3 am ....
i maybe getting a bit off subject but oh well imma junk picker ,, and ill put annything good to use ..sometimes just for my own satisfaction...
infact my newer digital marantz 100 per side{kitchen} . gets stepped on by my old 65 wpc technics , enough base to drive the 12's with ..
its a hobby collecting junk . but let me say this good junk , my 1969 pioneer reciever seams to have really good fm compaired to a few digital recievers .. hmm too cheap to develop a good digital fm demodulator .. like wtf if i want to dump an fm broadcast down to digital mp3's i have to use old analog equiptment like my sansui .. some day ill find a carver tuner {prays}....
but still some dig recievers should just be an amp and you can buy the fm tuner seperate ..if you want one as the one thats free sucks .. if an when a rareity occours and you can get an fm station up here with a good imac tube in thier transmitter {large percentage if not all of fm broadcasts , including satalight downlinks are tubes] and listen in stereo ., emailing a local station was fun as parked ontop of a hill you can get better am , then thier fm .. then lighting hit and they had to fix it ..... wow stereo thats actually not bad ..
about the newest thing i have is a harmon kardon avr/5 , wich actually sounds pretty good and looks better built then a few of the new class "a" technics amps /recievers i havent gotten around to fixing bad solder joints and blown drivers ..

blah blah ive seaid way too much for my fist post
so gohead flame me but rememebr im an old fart and that stuffs pure methane!

laterz peeps