RuudNL said:
Sometimes I think: what's the idea behind digging up 'old crap' from the 40's and 50's, spending a lot of time and money to restore the devices so they look 'as new' and then expect that the result sounds like 'state-of-the-art' equipment...
Of course the situation is different when we are talking about equipment from the 70's and 80's, but I really don't understand why some people collect that really old stuff!
But maybe I am wrong...
This is an intriguing question, and what's intriguing lies in the phrase "state of the art."
I think "state of the art" is commonly confused with "leading edge," and it can be important to remember that the two are NOT synonyms.
It's always a possibility that a given technology reached its zenith at some time in the past, as opposed to right now. It's also always possible that for a given technology, the
current "state" of the art is "not-too-good." You have to allow for these possibilities and listen with your ears.
To me, it's unwise to always assume that the newest thing is best, because very often this is simply not the case. It can also be misleading to assume that more "sophisticated" (read: complicated) technology is best, or that equipment "measuring better" must equate to better (or more evocative of realism) sound.
With audio gear, there are a few priorities that are often at odds with one another.
1) fidelity (or subjective 'good sound.')
2) reliability, serviceability, durability.
3) convenience, ease of use
4) affordability (both to operate and purchase)
5) compact size
6) flexibility ("features")
In my opinion/experience, when it comes to audio gear, there was a long period where #1 and #2 were prioritized above all else. The music industry was big business handled mostly by professionals and large companies, and the utmost importance was placed on performance and reliability.
At some point a few decades ago, my take is that we began to see a greater emphasis placed on 3, 4, 5 and 6. Various technologies made their debut that were cheaper to purchase run, smaller to store, and that offered convenient user interface and endless options/parameters the end-user could adjust. Along with this shift in philosophy (that was mostly industry-wide and occurred slowly over time) came a LOT of marketing spin to convince us that certain technologies (newer, cheaper, more profitable) were better-sounding (often accompanied by official-looking measurements that may or may not have had any relevance). I don't always take those claims at face value, because I simply quite often find them to not be necessarily true.
Some pieces of technology from the era when #1 and #2 were dominant still offer superior performance. Things like the Pultec EQP-1A, Neumann U47, AKG C12, Telefunken V72, etc. To me, pieces of gear with that level of performance are the benchmarks or "state of the art" in a lot of ways (not to say there isn't good, quality, no-compromises gear being made today).
Human nature is to never leave well-enough alone. We like to fix what isn't broken. Occasionally, some among us feel the need to use the stuff that simply works well and reliably.