Is Hi-Fi sound quality actually that much better than it was 10-20+ years ago?

[Vladimir]

]I may have told you before that my first speakers were AR4xa, also infinite baffle. The AR7s and 6s had just come out, and mine were the older model, by comparison.
I realised when auditioning my ATC a few months ago that I'd missed that tight, "crunchy" bass. It makes me wonder if there's something about that first experience that we want to relive, as there are so many other types of bass loading.

In this case, as Vladimir has already quite rightly pointed out, it's more a case of AR being a company who, at their peak, knew how to get good overall sonic performance out of domestically acceptable speakers.

AR speakers like the 4xa's were reasonable when they were new. They're still reasonable today.

There's a school of thought that as time has gone by, more and more companies have chased meaningless specs, such as bass extension, efficiency, THD, power output, power handling. IE designs, in general, have become more and more lead by the marketing department and less by the engineering. So that speakers like the 4xa's may not measure that well in certain respects but they do sound relatively good for what they are.

Please give me your thoughts on jbl708p

I'm seriously considering them but testing is difficult

Lindsayt would probably hunt down bigger old TOTL JBLs for the same budget. Big drivers, horns, efficient.

 

[lindsayt]

I've not heard JBL 708P's.

As Vladimir says, they are far too small and new for me to have the remotest interest in them. Depreciation, size and quality rules.

On the Lejonklou forum there's a few posters that have been very happy with JBL 3677's. These look more likely to have the ingredients for sounding good than the 708P's.

The 708P's might be an OK compromise between small size and sound quality. Or they might not.

Regardless, 708P's and 3677's are too new for any buyer to get the full benefit of the depreciation curve.

 

[Vladimir]

I've not heard JBL 708P's.

As Vladimir says, they are far too small and new for me to have the remotest interest in them. Depreciation, size and quality rules.

On the Lejonklou forum there's a few posters that have been very happy with JBL 3677's. These look more likely to have the ingredients for sounding good than the 708P's.

The 708P's might be an OK compromise between small size and sound quality. Or they might not.

Regardless, 708P's and 3677's are too new for any buyer to get the full benefit of the depreciation curve.

That may apply for mass made goods, but these actives are really TOTL boutique stuff with a lot of innovation behind it that Harman is very eager to proove as working in real work enviroments among top pros. These won't sell like hot cakes (LSR 305 and 308 do that) and will strongly hold value, like all expensive studio monitors. Quality tools and instruments hold value. Regular consumer goods in economies of scale that are treated as disposable, don't. This is why Kenrick Sound is in business today. Those big studio monitors were pros workhorses, not lifestyle (Veblen) goods. They still hold value today, JBL pro stuff is impervious to fads.

Size is a compromise for us in living rooms as listeners, but an 8 inch with a horn in your face near field listening is very very loud and dynamic. It will also certainly fill a room with sound, but not scale up to a full sized monitor like the JBL M2 in larger rooms. Midfield listening one should expect near to concert like SPL without compression.

All this in theory. What Andrew needs is to hear it in actual life. Also love needs to happen, eye to eye. Without that it doesn't matter how much you think something is right for you on paper, stinks like arranged marriage. This is a hobby after all.

 

[Joe Cox]

We did do a comparison of two 'Arcam' amps - one from 1976 and one from 2013

Mixed conclusion. So no, we haven't got a vested interest

 

[lindsayt]

Joe, did you ever replace any capacitors in the A60 to see if that helped with the bass extension and slight fuzziness?

 

[Joe Cox]

Don't even tempt our technical editor... But no, we didn't. It came from Arcam's archive so wasn't really within our remit to get the lid off!

 

[ellisdj]

Just looked the WHF article is it me or do the speaker binding posts look really close together on the Arcam A60?

Looks like they elastic banded together in the photo -

The rest looks very complex to a novice

 

[tonky]

The original A and R A60 had 2 pin phono plugs - not good - v difficult to make a tight connection.

I agree with the slight fuzziness and slight lack of clarity - but the sound was rich and full - seemed to have a lovely euphonic quality to it. I liked it a lot at the time - more power would have been nice!

tonky

 

[chebby]

Just looked the WHF article is it me or do the speaker binding posts look really close together on the Arcam A60?

They look bunched up because of the angle they are arranged in ...

... looked at from above (like the WHF? photo earlier) they would look like 6 binding posts squashed together ...

... but really you are seeing the bottom row too.

 

[nopiano]

Good detective work, chebby. I'd forgotten that about them, though I'd not forgotten the woolly sound that, pace most everyone at the time, I thought awful. I'd have had a NAD3020 over one of these any day. Still think they were overrated even though I like a bit of nostalgia. The preceding Cambridge P40 and its ilk looked stunning, but I never got to own or hear one at length, possibly on account of their unreliabllity!

 

[Vladimir]

It may sound muddy or muffled, but if you can grab one for an affordable temptingly low sum, dot it. Have a fling, hear the unit. Don't just read about hi-fi history, try it. After you have some fun you can pass it on to a different owner.

How does the Cambridge Audio P60 compare to these Arcams?

 

[BigH]

I had the AR4xa as well, I thought they were pretty poor actually and glad when I upgraded them.

Depsite hifi mags making out every new item is far better than previuos versions, I don't think there has been a great improvement, in fact I would say that things have got worse. Having done some demos after 20 years I was shocked at how poor some hifi systems were.

 

[Vladimir]

Interesting poll outcome on PFM.

 

[BigH]

Interesting poll outcome on PFM.

I had the NAD 3030 which was not great.

 

[Vladimir]

Interesting poll outcome on PFM.

I had the NAD 3030 which was not great.

Did you have it from new and what were the obvious shortcomings?

 

[BigH]

Yes from new. Had power and bass but rather dull sounding, lacking in detail, maybe it was because of the AR speakers. The Arcam Alpha 3 I thought was far better.

 

[Al ears]

Yes from new. Had power and bass but rather dull sounding, lacking in detail, maybe it was because of the AR speakers. The Arcam Alpha 3 I thought was far better.

Every one raved about the early NADs but they left me cold. Have never owned one but heard many. Compared with the Japanese offerings of the time they were somewhat lacking.

 

[Andrewjvt]

I've not heard JBL 708P's.

As Vladimir says, they are far too small and new for me to have the remotest interest in them. Depreciation, size and quality rules.

On the Lejonklou forum there's a few posters that have been very happy with JBL 3677's. These look more likely to have the ingredients for sounding good than the 708P's.

The 708P's might be an OK compromise between small size and sound quality. Or they might not.

Regardless, 708P's and 3677's are too new for any buyer to get the full benefit of the depreciation curve.

 

Lsr6332?
Please give your thoughts

 

[chebby]

Every one raved about the early NADs but they left me cold. Have never owned one but heard many. Compared with the Japanese offerings of the time they were somewhat lacking.

My 1st 3020 hopped skipped and jumped all over it's contemporary 'budget Japanese superstars' (like the Sansui AU-217 and the JVC JA-S11).

It's why I ended up using two of them over a period of five years (with Celestion Countys and then AR18s).

 

[Al ears]

Every one raved about the early NADs but they left me cold. Have never owned one but heard many. Compared with the Japanese offerings of the time they were somewhat lacking.

My 1st 3020 hopped skipped and jumped all over it's contemporary 'budget Japanese superstars' (like the Sansui AU-217 and the JVC JA-S11).

It's why I ended up using two of them over a period of five years.

Each to their own I guess, which is what it's all about at the end of the day. The only big difference to me is the room size I had set-up in. Years ago had large Victorian house with huge rooms and have since 'updraded' to modern detached... bad move!

 

[chebby]

Interesting poll outcome on PFM.

I had the NAD 3030 which was not great.

Did you have it from new and what were the obvious shortcomings?

The 3030 pre-dated the 3020 (despite the mis-leading nomenclature) and was not really in the same league despite costing more and having fancy meters.

 

[Al ears]

Interesting poll outcome on PFM.

I had the NAD 3030 which was not great.

Did you have it from new and what were the obvious shortcomings?

The 3030 pre-dated the 3020 (despite the mis-leading nomenclature) and was not really in the same league despite costing more and having fancy meters.

True. Meters were basically useless and added to the cost.

 

[Vladimir]

Interesting poll outcome on PFM.

I had the NAD 3030 which was not great.

Did you have it from new and what were the obvious shortcomings?

The 3030 pre-dated the 3020 (despite the mis-leading nomenclature) and was not really in the same league despite costing more and having fancy meters.

NAD really cheapened out on the 3020 build compared to the 3030. However, all voices say the followup simply sounds better.

 

[lindsayt]

Lsr6332? Please give your thoughts

I've not heard them. Speakers like this aren't quite my cup of tea, but I can understand how for some people they might be a good compromise between size, price, looks, sound quality.

 

[tonky]

Interesting poll outcome on PFM.

I had the NAD 3030 which was not great.

Did you have it from new and what were the obvious shortcomings?

The 3030 pre-dated the 3020 (despite the mis-leading nomenclature) and was not really in the same league despite costing more and having fancy meters.

NAD really cheapened out on the 3020 build compared to the 3030. However, all voices say the followup simply sounds better.

I agree - my brother had one for many years - it sounded v good for the price (soft clipping?) - however they did it - it worked well.

A bit like the original Pioneer A400 - subsequent models didn't do as well.

cheers tonky