I came across this in another thread and I began to mull it over as I have before. Just what is it about using an older product maybe using older tech that people like or prefer?
It maybe just down to preference in the end and maybe a non issue. But it just got me wondering. I am sure there are plenty on the forum willing to educate me and others as to what it is about older gear that makes them all warm and fuzzy inside too.
This can be really YMMV thing. And very difficult to make generalizations, too.
That said, I can think of several reasons.
To clarify, I am not a huge fan of old products, mainly because I prefer âplug and playâ and âno worry for unnecessary thingâ. But sometimes going for old thing may work. I enjoyed several great successes on B&W and JBL out-of-production speakers via ebay lurking.
Some reasons for interest include:
If you use older technology, quality is really tricky to objectively judge. As with some of those who buy records, the choice can follow the interactive experience rather than the end goal of hearing the music.
Technology improvements are much more obvious with cars and computers than with audio, as the early generations involved a lot of functional compromises. However, the car collector/customization market focuses on simple and maintainable tech. Note that early cars had crank starters, insane control systems, manual chokes, no A/C, and awful tires. A computer built in the 1980s might have cost $5,000 to $30,000 (graphics workstation) when new and still looks fantastic, but will under-perform even the cheapest PC or tablet sold today.
My coarse rules of thumb for older audio gear include:
I havenât really gotten into the âoldâ headphone amp world (yet) but in the live audio world (which is where I have spent most of my audio time) I am a lover of older gear.
Whilst the advances of technology have offered the possibility of reducing weight, size and price, there is still something about the older gear that just makes me smile. I find new digital mixing consoles great but I will always prefer the âfeelâ of dialing sound in rather than programming. While there are amazing line array systems that can be transported and set up with very few people, I will always love the old huge line arrays that need a team of 30 to set up (as long as roadies are available 
).
This has brought me to have some amazing sound systems that were at least 2 digits less than a similar sound quality system if today, however, it has also lead me to needing 3 storage places to store all this stuff since I moved into an apartment (I miss my country house!!!).
Anyhow, I think this is a long winded way of saying that I find the present day to be much more âhandyâ but I miss having racks of gear and 50 kg amps, there is just something special about it 
I definitely agree that nostalgia can play a significant part. Who doesnât like to roll back the years and tinker with older stuff. And as has already been said, you can get more bang for your buck.
I donât have any knowledge of older Audio equipment or for that matter any experience using it. But does it offer any sonic advantages over the newer stuff. Maybe tube amps do and if you want to add Dacs into the equation then things could become interesting. As I suppose there is more scope for a Dac to influence sonic change.
As I understand it, the 70s were a bit of an audiophile golden age when it comes to home audio. People were into sound quality and to a large extent that drove the stereo home audio market. First with the advent of VHS and then more so with the advent of DVD, consumers increasingly focused on âhome theaterâ, which is more driven by features than audio quality. If you look at an old stereo receiver, it includes a few interconnects, 2 channels of amplification and maybe an AM and FM tuner. If you look at todayâs low end AV receiver, it includes DACs, surround sound decoding, a zillion interconnects, 10 channels of amplification plus a subwoofer crossover, WiFi streaming, etc. Both from a cost perspective and from the perspective of trying to engineer something with that much capability crammed into a single chassis while keeping noise down, it seems pretty easy to guess which of the two can deliver better sound quality for the dollar. Audio Science Review has been testing some modern AV systems, and for the most part the low end ones perform disappointingly from a pure measurements perspective.
Something else to keep in mind is that unlike computers, whose cost and performance are driven by integrated circuits which continue to advance at a rapid pace, traditional discrete amplification doesnât benefit from the same rapid pace of improvement. Class D amplifier designs might be an exception to this, but they still seem kind of niche.
Thanks as always youâve brought up some great points. Of course youâre correct in saying that the older technology had fewer things to pack in and that the technology as a whole was simpler.
I wonder has Amplification design changed that much over the years? I know circuit board and chips have become cheaper to produce and things are smaller as a result of better chip yields. But in simple design terms is an Amp an Amp? Are Amps as good as they are going to get?
I know there are different designed Amps, as in how they achieve the end goal. But is there still innovation in how Amps are designed or is it simply a case of tweaking existing ideas?
From a practical perspective, by which I mean an amplifier playing actual music from a high-quality source (CD is ample), into a normal listening environment, at usable listening-levels, then we got there at least 20 years ago.
From a theoretical/engineering/measurements perspective, improvements are still being made. From an audibility perspective, theyâre rounding-errors on rounding-errors, but theyâre still technical advancements.
Better is better ⌠but those obsessing over a change in measurements at -120 dB in an environment that, in the best case, might have 60 dB of exploitable dynamic range (maybe 90 dB if weâre generous and consider that in an open environment you can âhear into the noise floorâ), is to pit one set of objective criteria against another ⌠and only one can apply.
Thanks for starting this thread. It brings up a whole host of issues.
@VimStory and @generic nailed most of it down. Nobody has yet pointed out âbecause I already own it, and have used it for years, itâs like mowing an old familiar lawn, where I know every hole and root.â
Reasons for liking older equipment vary a lot from person to person.
Itâs that and more. The entire human interface of home hi-fi from about 1950 to 1985 just works. Itâs purposeful, and even if that purpose is some sort of background music, itâs localized. Your equipment is in a certain place in the room. You go to the equipment and you physically interact with the equipment.
You donât have to remember what screen the source selection is on. There is a knob, usually with a clear set of markings. Phono, FM, AM, Tape, and AUX. If you were into taping, you might have a couple of tape selections, but you know what they are for.
How do you find your local FM music stations? Why thereâs a knob, just as your Deity intended, which lets you move a visible indicator to the station that always announces WQXR 105.9. (OK, 96.3 before 2009). If you wanted to play a record, you put one on the turntable, or a stack of them on the record-changer spindle, and either manually or by pushing some lever began the process. Since you were playing a phonograph record, you moved a knob on the amplifier/receiver to phono. If you had a new-fangled CD player, that was what AUX was for.
There is the matter of price/performance. as @Torq points out, as far as performance on the higher end, we were there 20 years ago. Much of the fundamental design of audio circuitry hasnât changed that all much since the 50âs and 60âs, we can just add all sorts of bells and whistles much more cheaply. When you drive a vintage car - I have a '64 Olds - you know itâs vintage and will handle and brake much worse than a modern car. It is heavy, it has a solid axle rear, the tires are small compared to todayâs cars. The bench seat doesnât hug you, although your companion on the bench might.
Not so much with a well cared for piece of audio equipment. The piano concerto will not sound like itâs played honky-tonk.
I think @generic has a very good point about 1 or 2 generation older tech. Itâs still easy to evaluate. It is much cheaper than new. When you go back much further, you have to know what you are doing and why you are doing it. You may want the controls or feel of older equipment. But you can find some new equipment that tries to mimic older style.
Iâd like to write more, but the wind has picked up and I have a new kite to try.
As always a pleasure to read your thoughts. Thanks for educating me.
For me, my Adcom GFA 535 does headphone duties for my Hifiman HE6SE. I paid $125 on Craigslist 8+ years ago and dusted it off for these headphones. No noise, plenty of power. Still has good caps. I could get a clone amp from China, those yellow Accupase A60 knockoffs for one, but Iâd rather not take the chance. If I didnât have this amp, I would probably get a GFA 555 at around $400 used today. They hit the spot better from a dollar/performance/quality perspective than newer amps on the market
