What's new

They sure dont make 'em like they used to. (1 Viewer)

LaMarcus

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
1,619
Real Name
LaMarcus
How come receivers today are not as powerfulas the ones back in the day. I'm talking about the old school receivers, pre-home theater, when if you had two 15" woofers and a Marantz receiver you'd make the house shake!!
Now days it's all subwoofer this and amp that. You didnt need a amp back then. What da hell happened? Does anybody know why 100watts doesnt mean jack !! That wont even make my woofers move anymore...
Please tell me what's going on?
 

AntonS

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 18, 2001
Messages
164
These days they have to pack 7 full blown amps in the little box. And the amp technology haven't changed much over the years. It still requires big transformers, bit capasitors, big trasistors. Maybe when digital amps get cheaper we'll see some change.
 

John Garcia

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 24, 1999
Messages
11,571
Location
NorCal
Real Name
John
Actually, you just need to spend a little more in today's dollars to get good sound. It's really not that difficult. Good "old school" receivers didn't cost a nickel, and times have changed. A $200 receiver "back in the day", would equate to something more like $400+ today. There are DOZENS of excellent performers in the $500-$1000 range.

If you buy a cheap amp, that is exactly what you get. Doesn't matter if it was then or now.

I don't see how digital amps will make the difference? As already noted in the same post, quality amps are still using quality transistors, capacitors and transformers.

Spell check is two buttons to the right of submit.
 

Gerard Martin

Second Unit
Joined
May 22, 2000
Messages
366
Lamarcus
Know exactly what your talking about I have a Marantz model 2275 75 watts per
channel era 1975 that makes my current
Marantz 120 watts sound like a mouse.
Go to www.classic-audio.com/marantz/mindex.html (look under FAQ Components section)
Q. why does my 35 watt marantz sound
better and louder than many 100 watt
receivers.
 

John Garcia

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 24, 1999
Messages
11,571
Location
NorCal
Real Name
John
"In ye olden times" the transformer and associated circuitry was powering only those two speakers.... They were likely also not build on PCBs, but used more wiring between those solid state components, not to mention there was little or no processing circuitry - NO DSPs!

My dad still has an old Pioneer 2ch unit that kicks serious butt. No digital display, no digital volume control, no remote, no calibrations, just good, clean power and great stereo sound. The thing is about as old as me...
 

Mike Veroukis

Second Unit
Joined
May 8, 2001
Messages
455
Location
Canada
Real Name
Michael
Didn't those old systems also rely on very efficient speakers? My understanding is that amp technology has in fact progressed a lot since the 70s and more powerful amps with less efficient speakers is the norm these days. To me it seems more like a change in philosophy more then anything else.
Of course I was only born in the 70s so I couldn't really say with much sertainty. :)
- Mike
 

Frank_S

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 28, 1999
Messages
565
I have an old Kenwood KR-7600(80wt/ch)receiver that I bought in 1976.
It powered 2 BIC Venturi Formula 6's back then. It was better than any system I've owned up until recently.
I still use the Kenwood at my shop but I sold the BIC's 10 years ago and ended up buying a pair of Fishers with 15" woofs to shake the shop. I would never buy Fisher speakers but they were cheap and will eventually succumb to damage in the shop environment anyway. They actually fill the shop very well which is about 20,000 cubic feet.:)
In contrast, I doubt the Yamaha receiver I had 10 years ago (RX-V870) with the same amount of power would be able to do the same.
 

Gerard Martin

Second Unit
Joined
May 22, 2000
Messages
366
Mike

I seriously doubt "way back when"

they made a more efficient speaker

than todays Klipsch which is what I

used on the 75 watt 120 watt comparison.

BTW the 2275 I have sold new in 75 for about $600 dollars which

would be in the neighborhood of $1500+ dollars today.
 

LaMarcus

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
1,619
Real Name
LaMarcus
But see now Gerard I agree with you and I don't. Also you make me wanna cry saying you still have your Marantz (old) since my wife made me throw mine away, it was like having to bury your first born son. Only the neg(-) side played music the pos(+)side was blown, and it weighed damn near 100pds!! So I had my fisher 15"s hooked up on the neg side if I wanted to hear anything but, it still kicked butt!!
smiley_angry_fire.gif

(but it was the ugliest damn thing you ever saw.lol)
Anyway....only thing I don't agree on Gerard (and you all may pick on me but), I'm losing faith in the quality of the "new" speaker and component era. Because today I went and bought some sony speakers at dare I say it Best Buy. Brought them home and hooked up the left speaker only and kept my right Fisher connected. And did a comparison, fading the balance l to r etc...
I'll tell you like this......my FISHER BLEW that $#!t away !!!
And these speakers are at least 17 years old! Now, I dont know if it has to do with the "warming up" period, I've heard on here that you gotta break speakers in or something like that....but there isn't that much "breaking in" in the world!!! And when I was growing up Fisher was "the $#!t", so I dont know why the consensus today is they suck. I just fell into the hype of that like "well maybe they do".
So now, I'm curious just if I need to make the upgrade and plunge into the "new era", cus I'll tell ya if these Sony's represent what is being sold out there, then catipult me back to the 70's and 80's cus there is no competition.
Now I've heard on here all about how all your tweeters have to be the same size, and it sounds bright and blah blah blah. Man give me a break! I dont even know what that crap means. But the old speakers held more bass, they were louder, hey...that's basically all I look for.
I would love to be shown different. Cus I haven't hear any of these new systems with the dual woofers and etc. I bought the sony HTIB, and it was cool (except for pushing my 15"s woofer).
I'll be upgrading to the Pioneer d811s 6.1 in about 2wks, please prove me wrong. I need faith renewed that this new stuff is worth it.
P.S. I will be taking these $#!t speakers back, and trying out the JBL N38's. for one last shot.
 

Gerard Martin

Second Unit
Joined
May 22, 2000
Messages
366
LaMarcus

IMO Sony speakers are the bottom of the barrel, the pits, as bad as it can get, on a scale of 1 to 10 come in below

0. You should see improvement with the

JBL's, if you have a Klipsch dealer in

your neighborhood have him demo a pair

of RF3's you will see even greater improvement. Some speaker manufactures

have made major improvements unfortunately Sony is Not one of them.

Good luck.
 

LaMarcus

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
1,619
Real Name
LaMarcus
Thanks Jerry, I needed to to hear that, well not really cus now I guess I really do have to up grade.:frowning: :D
I would definately like to demo a pair of klipsch speakers they look like they are primo speakers.:emoji_thumbsup:
 

Mike Veroukis

Second Unit
Joined
May 8, 2001
Messages
455
Location
Canada
Real Name
Michael
Yeah, I have to agree that the Sony speakers were a poor choice for comparison. I'd also check out Paradigm if you have the chance.

- Mike
 

LaMarcus

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
1,619
Real Name
LaMarcus
I tried to give the sonys a second chance today and they still suck!!!Best Buy asked me why I was returning them and I said "because they suck!!" They were amazed at my honesty.;)
On another note...I was shocked that a BB employee was pretty knowledgable about HT, cus I know how BB workers get a bad rap. I still taught her a few things, but she knew some stuff, I was surprized.....
 

Phil Iturralde

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 7, 1998
Messages
1,892
How come receivers today are not as powerful as the ones back in the day. ... the old school receivers, ...
Well, if you choose carefully, you can still rock and shake your house in multi-channel vs. old school 2-channel, ... more about that later.
During the '60s to early '70s, MFG of 2-CH AMP/REC were unregulated and they made unrealistic power ratings. Rate-power bandwidth was defined as the frequency range (say, 20 to 20,000 Hz) over which an amplifier could stay within -3 dB of its specified output power without going above a specified distortion level. There was a small kicker in such ratings in that -3 dB is the equivalent of a 50 per cent power loss!
Because of public outcry, exposed by Stereo Review, High Fidelity, and McIntosh, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) imposed a 1-hour @ 1/3 power pre-conditioning power test that the MFG. can use to provide their power-bandwidth rating. So, using the FTC-mandated power-specification style: the MFG. could rate there AMP/REC, for example, "60 watts per channel minimum into 8 ohms from 20 to 20,000 Hz with no more than 0.05 per cent distortion**", if the AMP/REC reached 60 watts after the 1-hour @ 1/3 power pre-conditioning power test.
This test separated the men from the boys because once the circuitry warmed up, some units rated "60 watts per channel minimum into 8 ohms from 20 to 20,000 Hz with no more than 0.05 per cent distortion**" failed to meet that under 0.05 per cent distortion though they could easily meet it @ 30 watts per channel.
Stereo Review immediately added that 1-hour power pre-conditioning process to their AMP Performance Test and reported whether it met its rating or not. Interestingly, because of that FTC-mandated pre-conditioning test, many, not all, so-called 60w x 2 AMP/REC were all of a sudden rated 30w x 2 AMP/REC. The MFG (mass-production) that generally passed such tests were Kenwood, Pioneer, Sansui, and JVC. The more expensive Yamaha, Marantz, HK & McIntosh already rated their equipment honestly so the pre-conditioning test was no problem, and this explained why their MSRP $$ vs. power ratings looked out of line for a while vs. the other massed produced Receivers.
**NOTE that it was no longer permissible to define an amplifier's frequency limits as the 3-dB-down points.
Those FTC-regulation days are gone w/multi-channel AV Receivers. I mentioned earlier that w/careful equipment selection, you can rock and shake your house once again. So, I put together this spreadsheet called Is 100w x 5 really 100w x 5? which compares the MFG. claimed power-rating x 5 vs. S&V benchmarked findings. Using the chart above, you get a general idea that may MFG don't quite reach their advertised rating vs. S&V tough 5-, 6-Channel benchmark, but if the AV Receiver is around 70w x 5 or higher, you can easily reach REF Level (if you wanted - though most choose 10 dB below REF Level) using 86 dB sensitive speakers and a powered-sub in your HT room.
Phil
 
J

John Coleman

With regard to older speakers, I totally know what you mean. When I was in college, I had a pair of "Smaller Classic" Advents (circa 1970's, approx. 20 years old at the time). They were a pretty small, two-way bookshelf, but they could sure put out the bass, and their tweeter was silky-smooth. I have owned speakers costing 10x as much as the Advent's, but I still think they are my favorite speaker I have ever owned. Basically put, they could rock the house, and they were as old as I was. College was great. I sure miss those speakers.
 

Bob_L

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 19, 2001
Messages
894
Real Name
Bob Lindstrom
Elsewhere in this forum you can find messages in which I praise the merits of vinyl to the skies.
That said, count me among those who don't agree with the premise of this thread.
I'm sure that if I still had my AR-9 speakers, Apt/Holman preamp and Hafler D-500 amp (circa 1980's gear), they would sound great (as great as they did eight years ago when my ex-wife got them in the divorce settlement. That B*TCH!!!!! :) Hmmm. Where's the Sam Kinison smilies when you need it?)
However, my current NHT, Outlaw, Aragon system ABSOLUTELY outdoes the previous system for fast response, clarity and subtlety. No question. Speakers and electronics have greatly improved in detail, rise times and dynamic range to meet the challenge of digital media
And yet, I still find my B&O bookshelf system -- dating back to 1975 -- VERY SATISFYING to listen to. (It dates back to the time, IMHO, when B&O was still as much about the sound quality as it was the "interior designer" look.)
 

LaMarcus

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
1,619
Real Name
LaMarcus
Ya see Bob, I would love to know what your talking about. If you really read what this thread is about it's not only about the love and remembrance of a time when sound nirvana actually seemed to exist, but this thread is also about the hope that those days can be replicated.
Their is nothing more I want, than to experience a truly incredible Home theater (anybodies). The one I already have sounds great believe me, dare I use the cliche of "it sounds better than all of my friends". But I have never heard nor seen a outlaw in person, or a pioneer elite, or a Denon 5800, etc.
So until these things are witnessed by me, the title of this thread still remains true and I'm sure its true for many other folks who love good sound. I'm really curious as to what I am messing. I hate listing to my system wondering, if this if what it's supposed to sound like, is the sound levels correct, are my speakers high enough, should I replace the speakers?
That stuff drives me cRaZy :crazy: . In closing I'll say that I do know that there is equipment out there that is powerful that is as good as or better than the equipment of old. But the fallacy about that is, it's not attainable to the average consumer. Spending a $1000-$4000 on a receiver or a pre-amp is impractical and insane to the majority (including myself) ;)
 

Steve Zimmerman

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 6, 2001
Messages
347
I hate listing to my system wondering, if this if what it's supposed to sound like, is the sound levels correct, are my speakers high enough, should I replace the speakers?
That right there is the nasty downside of being an HT enthusiast. I'm guessing that "back in the day" you just kicked back and enjoyed the music rather than wondering how good it sounded.

--Steve
 

Sihan Goi

Second Unit
Joined
Nov 2, 2001
Messages
442
Sony isn't THAT bad...believe me there are worse speakers. In fact Sony even has a couple of speakers that are in Stereophile list of recommended components. Of course they cost like almost 20 grand or so...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
348,386
Messages
4,844,112
Members
142,311
Latest member
AaronChi
Recent bookmarks
0
Top