Vintage audio equipment

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

RuudNL

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
3,106
Location
Haule / The Netherlands
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...
 
Because the better stuff sounds awesome, full of personality.  I make records for a living, and frequently use nothing but 1945-55 era front end pieces.  They can hardly be described as 'antique sounding', and I've sold a lot of this sort of gear to people who immediately sold their modern tube gear upon hearing it.  Matter of taste, of course. 
 
RuudNL said:
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...

I agree! That stuff is junk. Everyone should buy those new thingys and mail me the old stuff... I'll even pay for shipping  ;)
 
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.

 
I am in the process of restoring an 1940 RCA PA amplifier (single ended 6L6 output preceded by a couple of 6J7s) for a client who wants to use it because of the tonal qualities it offers and after recapping it and replacing a couple of dud resistors I got it going again and tried it with an AKG D190 dynamic mic and one of my bookshelf Tannoy speakers.

Now I am a born sceptic when it comes audiophool nonsense and for some time I have put down the lack of 'sparkle' in the sound I have been hearing to my ageing ears (I am 61). In my youth I remember hearing The Beatles 'Tomorrow Never Knows' and marvelling at the  crystal clear percussion in the intro. Many years later I heard the same track on a friends CD and the sparkle was gone and I put that down to changes in my ears.

I have been using the D190 mic for nearly 40 years and the Tannoy speakers for the last 10 so I am familiar with their sound. When I first turned on this little amp  I expected a fairly dull, boring sound but I was extremely surprised to hear a crystal clear top end I had not heard for many years. I don't know what caused it, distortion of some kind, class A clarity - I don't know - but I do know I liked the sound. And that I guess is what the attraction is for many people in this old gear.

Cheers

Ian
 
I have a Marconi dynic regulator (power supply)  from 1920s waiting for the condensers (capacitors) to be restored. It does not even produce sound. I get a lot of pleasure from looking at it.
 
> expect that the result sounds like 'state-of-the-art' equipment...

State of the Art was mature in the 1930s, as far as sound goes.

70 years has bought much lower cost, power consumption, size, better measurement numbers, and a few useful tricks like digital EQ and storage/editing.

Not all old stuff is great, but some of it was as good as it gets.

The best recording I ever heard, despite tape damage, was done in 1953 with RCA ribbon direct into an Ampex. I did hundreds of recordings in the same room 1970s onward, with many different toys, but none had the same warmth and realism.
 
2) reliability, serviceability, durability.

How much of today's gear is disposable?  Unserviceable micro board built equipments. 

You might also equate durability with the obsolescence of software in DAW.  Your OS might last but how often to you have to get a newer one to use what may be required software updates for your main program?  Product support may vanish 2 months after you bought something that was must have-red-hot-flava of the week. 




and then expect that the result sounds like 'state-of-the-art' equipment..

Well, if they have any sense, they simply want the gear to sound as good as it was when new - or "up to factory spec", plus a few improvements if attainable.




Now I am a born sceptic when it comes audiophool nonsense and for some time I have put down the lack of 'sparkle' in the sound I have been hearing to my ageing ears (I am 61). In my youth I remember hearing The Beatles 'Tomorrow Never Knows' and marvelling at the  crystal clear percussion in the intro. Many years later I heard the same track on a friends CD and the sparkle was gone and I put that down to changes in my ears.

@Ian - Do you recall what your reaction was years ago when people started paying through the nose for older Neve modules & consoles?  From some stories I've heard the facilities that sold them were glad to get shed of them and it took a while before the market prices started taking off.



the situation is different when we are talking about equipment from the 70's and 80's

Maybe for the format - interfacing & standardization.  Lots of 70s limiters were gobs noisier than their earlier tube counterparts.

How early was the best Neumann capsule designed?  The one that has been cloned to death?






But enough of this!!  Nothing even existed before UA - everybody knows this!!    jeez  :D ;D ::) 
 
lassoharp said:
@Ian - Do you recall what your reaction was years ago when people started paying through the nose for older Neve modules & consoles?  From some stories I've heard the facilities that sold them were glad to get shed of them and it took a while before the market prices started taking off.

When I was there, Neve's reputation was principally for reliability - built like a battleship was the standard description - that and the flexibility of custom built solutions. Sonics were  rarely if ever a primary factor for purchasers. And of course in those days there was no hankering after 'vintage' gear. That said, the sound quality I heard in the many studios I visited was unbeatable - so much so I could not bear to listen to regular hi-fi for many years.

How did I feel when old Neve modules started to sell for big money - bemused is probably the best word.

Cheers

Ian
 
Well, bemused was the reaction I got from people when I showed up with a V76 in the glorious SSL studio where I was working back then. 'TAB - yeah, they were also playing around a bit back then' said the main technician. At first we only used it as a fuzz box and during the first recordings I made by myself I put it up with a room mike, just to listen to how it might sound. I couldn't believe how great the sound was. Some years later the stuff started to pick up hilarious prices. Later I got a V41 from the 1940s and fixed it up, again I couldn't believe not only how great it sounds, but also that there's full frequency response and no unusual noise. Audio electronics definitely were matured already back then, I believe the recording media was the weak spot until the 'invention' of tape bias back in the 40s.

So back to why it is worth to restore old stuff that's way beyond it's original life expectance nowadys? Because the good stuff from back then still rocks, might sound better and has more character than any modern design. There might be a lot of technical reasons for that, which could also be analyzed - but in the end I don't care as long as it sounds great  ;)

Michael
 
Well, of course the idea behind my posting was to tease you all a little...  ;D
I know that there are as many people who say that this old equipment adds something 'special' to the sound, as there are who say that it is utter nonsense and that it is all 'between the ears'...

Reading the comments, two questions arise:

- Where did it all go 'wrong'? Why doesn't modern equipment that measures ruler-flat with distortion figures of 0.0000x% sound as good as the 'good old' vintage equipment?
Is it the 'special distortion' or the 'colour of the transformers' ? (Or shouldn't it measure 'flat'?)
[size=8pt](I used to work with an old Neve desk. It sounded so good that you didn't have to use any EQ at all. Even if somebody farted into a microphone, it sounded beautiful...)[/size]

- How is it possible that with all the technical developments we can not reproduce the same 'warm' and 'good' sounds from the 40's and 50's?
As soon as we know 'what it is', we could program it into a DSP I would say!  :p
 
consider the following analogy:

why does the major scale sounds good to our ears? (in comparison to odd quarter note scales or anything else for that matter)

-maybe because we are used to it through hundreds of years of listening.

now,most of the "classic" records that we consider to mark this vintage sound ,were stamped with these distortions in tubes,mics ,preamps and obviously tape.
when the digital era came, the sound became too realistic and thus different to what our ear is used to.

so maybe its only a matter of getting used to a certain sound.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top