Am I dreaming?

[xtsili]

How would you consider the fact that a (recently serviced) Luxman L3 from 1980 is outperforming a Yamaha A-S700 from 2010, both tested on my signature speakers?

Amazing, isn't it?

I know, I know I have to define "outperforming": louder (42W RMS louder than 105W RMS), warmer, deeper, more musical, the least I can say.

What are the conclusions to be drawn? mass-made gear from late '70s better than modern gear? Or the Yamaha is "WHF" said it is:lame, boring, souless, etc (I am paraphrasing to make the long story short).

I sold it anyway!

Thanks

 

[chebby]

It cost about £450 at launch in 1978 (in Japan) when the 'new' NAD 3020 would cost about £65.

I am not totally suprised that an amp costing £450 in 1978 is giving stiff competition to an amp costing about £500 now.

 

[WishTree]

I know.. it is paradoxical!

Marantz PM-11 is a beast of machine and it was almost souless when it is pitted against a very old Audiolab 8000S. Even worse the PM-11 weights and costs much more than this Audiolab. There is no way to get this right with out listening to the gear and some times the price does not seem to matter at all!

 

[xtsili]

chebby:
It cost about £450 at launch in 1978 (in Japan) when the 'new' NAD 3020 would cost about £65.

I am not totally suprised that an amp costing £450 in 1978 is giving stiff competition to an amp costing about £500 now.

How did you do the calculations? £450 is the current equivalent to the 1978 actual price? As I bought it for much less in 1980 - let's say £100 1980 actual price.

 

[xtsili]

chebby:
It cost about £450 at launch in 1978 (in Japan) when the 'new' NAD 3020 would cost about £65.

I am not totally suprised that an amp costing £450 in 1978 is giving stiff competition to an amp costing about £500 now.

Yes the more I am thinking of it the more that I think you are right. Simply consider that the entire value of my system at the time (Luxman amp and turntable+ tangent speakers) was considerably higher than the monthly salary of my father, whereas my current systm was a mere fraction of my salary.

 

[ID.]

xtsili:
mass-made gear from late '70s better than modern gear?

I don't think I'd class 70's Luxman as mass produced (what happened to the brand in the 80s and 90s is another story). High quality manufacturing with attention to detail that you don't get from mass produced modern kit.

Then there's accounting for inflation.

Still it is nice that solid engineering and the basics still hold their own these days. My dad runs a Luxman that is just about the same age as me, and it still holds its own.

 

[xtsili]

ID.:xtsili:
mass-made gear from late '70s better than modern gear?

I don't think I'd class 70's Luxman as mass produced (what happened to the brand in the 80s and 90s is another story). High quality manufacturing with attention to detail that you don't get from mass produced modern kit.

Then there's accounting for inflation.

Still it is nice that solid engineering and the basics still hold their own these days. My dad runs a Luxman that is just about the same age as me, and it still holds its own.

Well apparently it may not have been that mass-market of a product. Even its styling and looks was way ahead of its time.

 

[Anonymous]

Its not surprising to me as I up/downgraded to my time-warp "Ashes to Ashes" Audiolab amp and was very impressed.

I went from a 1999 model-year Nad C340 (IIRC?) to an admittedly more expensive, Audiolab 8000a and it was a massive step up.

Lets be honest there hasn't been much change in analogue audio technology since the 80's.

I also used to run a set of Ruark Prologue 1's from the early 90's (I believe) and they were wonderful.

I sometime feel that the apparent continous improvement of hifi is overstated. Every year the new products just seem to get better and better than the ones they replace! And yet going back to the classics (which should be 20x worse by now) still sound fantastic.

Hmmm.