Good Question: What do you consider to be high end vintage gear?

[restorer-john]

The list has devolved into adding member's own mainstream brands and many in the initial list were dubious entries. Nothing DCM made could have been considered high end. The had a catchy name Timewindow and an interesting design and they ran with catchy names. They weren't well made or finished. The cabinets were cardboard, chipboard and lots of silastic to hold the drivers in, all covered with a sock and capped with two bits of wood. The crossovers were the ultimate in rat's nest designs. I loved my Timewindows when I didn't know better. The big DCMs were hardly any better and priced on the success of the Timewindows. The TFs were terrible IMO.

Putting Teac, Yamaha and Marantz in as high end is plain rubbish. They were huge companies producing mainly mid fi gear with the occasional statement pieces only. Yes those statement pieces were high end, but the rest of the their gear, the majority of what they sold, the reason they were in business to make money was straight up consumer level stuff.

It's like calling Toyota a prestige brand because they make a TOTL Lexus or Nissan a high end car company because of the GTR or the Infiniti line.

The list needs to be specific, brand and model number, that will allow say Yamaha to have its centennial series gear which is undoubtedly high end in, but exclude all the bread and butter stuff. Marantz could have say the CD12/DA12 cd/dac combo (at $6,000 it was high end), Sony could have the SCD-1. Harman Kardon could have the Citation XX. Otherwise the list is meaningless and too broad.

 

[4-2-7]

I don't believe the Teac machines are high end. They might have one or two, but I don't know which one they would be.

The tandberg and revox machines are sonically so much better than the teacs that I leave teac off the list. This comes from personal experience of listening to the Tandberg vs. Teac from outside the sound room and being able to tell the difference.

But that is my opinion and it can be on the list cause others must think it belongs.

I think in these threads everyone just rattles off what they have and like. To them it's high end, but really it's only better than they might of had before.

I really think tough the more threads like this and being honest will let people know what is what. The only problem is some just can't take the truth and need to defend their brand regardless if they are right.

Carry on....

 

[4-2-7]

Looking though this thread and seeing a name brands blerted out and calling everything under that brand "High End" is totally the furthest thing from the truth.

 

[Mark B]

The list has devolved into adding member's own mainstream brands and many in the initial list were dubious entries. Nothing DCM made could have been considered high end. The had a catchy name Timewindow and an interesting design and they ran with catchy names. They weren't well made or finished. The cabinets were cardboard, chipboard and lots of silastic to hold the drivers in, all covered with a sock and capped with two bits of wood. The crossovers were the ultimate in rat's nest designs. I loved my Timewindows when I didn't know better. The big DCMs were hardly any better and priced on the success of the Timewindows. The TFs were terrible IMO.

Putting Teac, Yamaha and Marantz in as high end is plain rubbish. They were huge companies producing mainly mid fi gear with the occasional statement pieces only. Yes those statement pieces were high end, but the rest of the their gear, the majority of what they sold, the reason they were in business to make money was straight up consumer level stuff.

It's like calling Toyota a prestige brand because they make a TOTL Lexus or Nissan a high end car company because of the GTR or the Infiniti line.

The list needs to be specific, brand and model number, that will allow say Yamaha to have its centennial series gear which is undoubtedly high end in, but exclude all the bread and butter stuff. Marantz could have say the CD12/DA12 cd/dac combo (at $6,000 it was high end), Sony could have the SCD-1. Harman Kardon could have the Citation XX. Otherwise the list is meaningless and too broad.

Are we including only high end ($$$) or both high end and hi-fi?

In the mid to late 1970's when Yamaha produced the B-1 and C-1 they would have been both high end and hi-fi.

 

[Gang-Twanger]

Damn-nice is good stuff but is it high end?

If we keep throwing everything into this thread, it won't talk to the high end as was asked. For those that don't know what the high end is, this thread may not instruct much. But it will put more brands out there for those interested to investigate.

Oh no, what I meant was, if my cute, little 1710W is as good as the Akai people say it is, I couldn't help but think that they must make a model much higher up the trough that WOULD qualify. After all, that's how they got their good name in the first place, right? Making reel-to-reel decks?

I'm asking, not telling though. I honestly don't know myself, but I thought they were kind of like Sherwood at one time. Making top-notch gear back in their early days, only to be diced and sliced at some point in the '70's (a move that ultimately ruins the brand's good name)

 

[restorer-john]

It begs the questions of what exactly 'high end' actually is.
Is it overpriced stuff with dubious technical merit?
Is it no-expense spared construction and componentry?
Is it topology and design, be it leading edge, or classically evolutionary topology that qualifies as high end?
Or is it a combination of all of these things arbitrarily decided by hi-fi magazine scribes?

Does the value equation and demonstrable performance parameters come in to the 'high end' or not?

 

[ehoove]

I think there are really 2 categories:
True Vintage high end is rarefied air in which only high end manufactures from that time period who are still only in the high end market qualify. However their is a 2nd category in which some manufacturers such as Marantz, Harmon Kardon, and Sherwood etc should be included for their early tube gear, but not after they went mass production. Likewise Early McIntosh tube gear, but not the SS gear of that time period.
Regards,
Jim

 

[E-Stat]

Here are two additions, one designed specifically to drive the other:

Dayton-Wright

Threshold (Nelson Pass continues today with Pass Labs and First Watt)

They made beautiful music together in the mid 70s.

 

[Gang-Twanger]

One thing I've noticed about gear, no matter the quality, is that overcoming the learning curve is everything. Knowing the gear and how to best make it sing is the key. And just when you think you've got it all figured out, take a step back and think about it one more time because it's amazing how easy you can miss something. It's good to experiment, but just be sure to keep track of settings that make your gear speak to you, that way you can go back to them if the experimentation doesn't work out. A mid-fi system where the owner knows his gear and is ahead of the learning curve can end up sounding a lot better than a high-end system where the owner has his head up his ass. And if you think I'm crazy for saying that, then you just might be that second guy.

And don't get me started on turntables...

One area where I REALLY pay attention is the music. I hate mastering compression and limiting, and I'm not fond of most digital recordings I've heard. Classical has done alright with it (sort of), but I can't stand the sound of most of the digitally-recorded rock and pop albums I've heard (Notice I said "most"). Ever listen to Peter Gabriel's "Secret World Live" through old speakers from the '60's? The snare drum sounds like it was specially-designed to offend ears, plus it has that vague-sounding bass that's typical with most digital rock/pop recordings. And I'm especially-careful about which PRESSINGS I listen to, especially with vinyl (1st pressing from the country of origin usually). CD's are a mixed bag. I always check the dynamic range, although there are MANY other factors involved. All this stuff makes as much of a difference as the gear I choose.

 

[BillyBatts]

For many, I suspect environment when growing up around the gear had a lot to do with opinions on what was and wasn't high end back then. I know it did for me. That translates to what is now personally considered VINTAGE high end audio.

When I was in College, all we did was sit around and talk high-end audio. It was our religion. We worked all summer to afford the best gear we could buy, and then we compared it during Fall semester. Sansui, Yamaha, Pioneer, McIntosh, TEAC, JBL and Altec Lansing were ingrained in us as "High Quality" at the time, and that stuck.... well, for me at least. I'm not talking entry level rigs either. There were benchmarks that included minimum power RMS and slew rate, and selectivity, etc.

I've got some Yamaha, McIntosh and Pioneer that definitely qualified then, and satisfy my benchmarks now for vintage high end gear.

Anything that was manufactured pre 1980 ish that had a fine reputation "back then" as a higher end audio component was in play for our discussions in college. That stuck with me, and drives my opinions on high end vintage audio gear today.

 

[Gang-Twanger]

For many, I suspect environment when growing up around the gear had a lot to do with opinions on what was and wasn't high end back then. I know it did for me. That translates to what is now personally considered VINTAGE high end audio.

When I was in College, all we did was sit around and talk high-end audio. It was our religion. We worked all summer to afford the best gear we could buy, and then we compared it during Fall semester. Sansui, Yamaha, Pioneer, McIntosh, TEAC, JBL and Altec Lansing were ingrained in us as "High Quality" at the time, and that stuck.... well, for me at least. I'm not talking entry level rigs either. There were benchmarks that included minimum power RMS and slew rate, and selectivity, etc.

I've got some Yamaha, McIntosh and Pioneer that definitely qualified then, and satisfy my benchmarks now for vintage high end gear.

Anything that was manufactured pre 1980 ish that had a fine reputation "back then" as a higher end audio component was in play for our discussions in college. That stuck with me, and drives my opinions on high end vintage audio gear today.

"Slew rate"....... I love that...... Don't even know what that is.

No, REALLY... I don't have a clue... (I should probably find out, so I maybe I'll go do that).

At that age, I was concerned with women and being a better guitar player (and other things). I was in my first real band and learning all about egos and control freaks, and lead singers, and bass players, OMG, bass players. You can't imagine...

I did have some good times during those first years. They were a learning experience, but a tough one.

 

[BilboBaggins]

This is getting really interesting. Great! That was what I was hoping for.

For me this thread is about educating myself through the collective knowledge of the audio karma community. At the same time, it is about educating us all.

First of all, it is clear there are many perspectives.

How do we decide what goes on the list?

 

[4-2-7]

This is getting really interesting. Great! That was what I was hoping for.

For me this thread is about educating myself through the collective knowledge of the audio karma community. At the same time, it is about educating us all.

First of all, it is clear there are many perspectives.

How do we decide what goes on the list?

I think the call for specifics is needed. You mentiond Denon earlyer in you list, well Denon put out a lot of plastic BS that I would just as soon tosse in the trash than bring home working or not.

A Thorens TD-125 was high end in 79 but not all Thorens tables are high end.

IMO if you look at SME Limited, 99% of the tonearms they put out are high end for the time they were introduced, but personaly I would not put the SME 3009 III in the high end henc the 99%

My system is high end IMO but it dosen't matter if it's old or new, it just needs to be high end and sounding good together.

 

[Tinkerbelle]

I think the call for specifics is needed. You mentiond Denon earlyer in you list, well Denon put out a lot of plastic BS that I would just as soon tosse in the trash than bring home working or not...

Plenty of superb equipment was and is still made under the Denon label, so we should not generalize. Some equipment is built to a performance point, some to a price point and some to a market need or niche.

 

[Mark B]

While most AK'ers recognize the usual high end brand names, many don't know that some of the large audio manufacturers made some truly exceptional audio gear that falls squarely in the high end camp. Some were limited edition statement pieces, such as Yamaha's GF-1 speakers, and some, like the VFET amps produced by Yamaha and Sony were manufactured in large numbers. JVC also manufactured a VFET amp, the JM-S7, which was produced in small numbers.

 

[4-2-7]

I think the call for specifics is needed. You mentiond Denon earlyer in you list, well Denon put out a lot of plastic BS that I would just as soon tosse in the trash than bring home working or not.

A Thorens TD-125 was high end in 79 but not all Thorens tables are high end.

IMO if you look at SME Limited, 99% of the tonearms they put out are high end for the time they were introduced, but personaly I would not put the SME 3009 III in the high end henc the 99%

My system is high end IMO but it dosen't matter if it's old or new, it just needs to be high end and sounding good together.

Plenty of superb equipment was and is still made under the Denon label, so we should not generalize. Some equipment is built to a performance point, some to a price point and some to a market need or niche.

Yes in deed and in looking at my entire post you see how I got specific past the brand name alone.

With Thorens it was easyer to just mention a table that is high end out of their line-up.

With SME Limited it's easyer to call out what is not high end with their arm line-up.

Other wise with a company like Denon being so vast in components naming what's consumer and high end the list would be quite long in both departments. The only reason I mentioned Denon because it was on the OPs list of High End.:thmbsp:

 

[Tinkerbelle]

Well because AK will not use the term High End in the name of a forum we now have our first fresh-posted interloper with the inclusion of a thread in the Vintage Gear-Performance Forum. But it is totally correct based on the title of the forum.

There is a new post here on this forum where the OP has a Bottom Of The Line, entry level, Harman Kardon 330B and wants to get it repaired and while doing so he wants to have some increased performance. So it should be posted in the Vintage Gear-Performance forum, right? Since no one reads the stickies at the top introducing the forum and what should or should not be in that forum that title seems like the logical place for that question.

With all the dilution of the High End in this particular thread, with the mass marketers brands listed, not the individual pieces of gear that maybe, might possibly, be considered High End, this forum is floundering along trying to get traction. To help it along, old threads about the best this or that have been moved here to keep the discussion alive. The best denon integrated amp...well denon made separates so the integrated amps would not even come close to being the Classic High-End Gear as called out in one of those stickies here, unless it was a statement piece. So this thread probably doesn't belong in a forum about High-End Gear.

With folks just throwing out their favorites, the better gear they wanted when they bought their lesser unit and such with no accounting for whether it is a high end piece or not this forum will devolve into just another place to talk about any half-way decent piece of vintage gear. The 330B sure is at least a half-way decent piece of vintage audio gear. Much better than many receivers from all sorts of manufacturers, many much more powerful. Loved my 330c while I had it and would pick up another 330 if the price is right.

It would be nice if this forum could get the proper name so the discussion can be focused to that topic. Let's see what happens as AK continues to add new rooms and install room treatments on this board.

Please note that not only to the forum rules quite clearly specify the direction of this forum the forum Title description does also as shown here:

There should not be any confusion. The low end threads have been removed to their general forum discussion areas.

 

[Tinkerbelle]

Yes in deed and in looking at my entire post you see how I got specific past the brand name alone.

With Thorens it was easyer to just mention a table that is high end out of their line-up.

With SME Limited it's easyer to call out what is not high end with their arm line-up.

Other wise with a company like Denon being so vast in components naming what's consumer and high end the list would be quite long in both departments. The only reason I mentioned Denon because it was on the OPs list of High End.:thmbsp:

I appreciate the explanation. However, as the forum is specific to higher end components it should be understood that any reference to manufacturers and their gear should be only to their high performance or highly regarded versions, not their general mass-produced compromised offerings. So, if you were talking Chrysler, you might be referring to, say, a Viper or Challenger Hellcat but not a K-car or Neon.

 

[Tinkerbelle]

This is true but many that are forum jumping, using the Forum Jump drop down menu never see the tag line for the description. I don't, but I have been vocal about this forum prior to its introduction and am hoping that it will lead to the discussions that are about high end gear. Something like the sonic differences in the Marantz 8b at 35 wpc, the Luxman MB-3045 at 50 wpc or the McIntosh MC30 or MC60 in that range. And to keep this discussion out of the tube forum, let's add that it must be driven by a solid state preamp or some other high end discussion instead of receivers and integrated amps.

Keep up the good work and you'll have something for us to enjoy.

Well, yes, the intent is to steer in an upwards direction with equipment discussion rather than diluting the vision of reaching for true high end performance. Comparisons between the likes of TOTL offerings from Marantz, Luxman, McIntosh, Craftsmen, Leak, Quad, Krell, etc., etc. power and preamp equipment would be extremely welcome and informative for optimum no/low-compromise system building.

However, in your proposed vision, are you suggesting to broadly rule out everything but separates? Some integrated amps have exceptional performance, such as the higher end Accuphase or Luxman offerings. In the right context and setting, would you not consider such items as interesting high end discussion material, even if it resulted in definitive evidence that separates are, in many cases, the optimum choice?

We do also need to balance between high end forum discussion content and The Cutting Edge content to distinguish between their focus. To that end, there is a High-end Separates sticky in TCE forum. :scratch2:

Good discussion.

 

[sc427]

I would include Nestorovic Labs in the vintage high end category. Nestorovic worked for Mcintosh, Carver, Speakerlab and then formed Nestorovic Labs. His speakers were a refined, no cost spared boutique versions of the ones he designed at Speakerlab. System 12 or system 16 were his top speakers. He also designed a tube amp that according to smarter people than I thought was exceptional.... If you ever get the chance to listen to any of his stuff.... Do it....