Vintage audio is better than modern audio. Why is this?

>>57973036
no its not

only if you're comparing old high end to modern mediocre stuff
in terms of bang/buck it sure is

>>57973036
you know it mostly isn't, now fuck off with a reply bait thread.

>>57973036
it isnt

>>57973036
>what is: placebo effect

>>57973036
That's not true. Only hipsters believe this. The thing about records is that once they start to age there are more and more pops/scratches to deal with. I mean just putting it in a sleeve in the first place. Digital is so much better unless you are collecting something valuable for the future.

>>57973088
this is not a digital/analog discussion, though

>Preferring unintentional compression and saturation

No shit if you grew up listening to it, that's why Blink 182 got nominated for rock album of the year. You're statement was correct if you add on Subjectively or I Think to the beginning, because all it will ever be is an opinion

File: installsolus.jpg (16KB, 250x167px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 250x167px

>>57973098
True. This seems more like a clickbait thread though desu.

>>57973088
>not using a laser reader

>>57973110
there is lots of vintage gear that's completely transparent

>>57973119
That's pretty cool, but I still don't see the advantage over using cd. I guess it's whatever you would like to use though.

>>57973036
could anyone recommend a good artisan wool scarf maker? I'd prefer them made from small family farm rased sheep if possible. I'd like to have one to wear when listening to my records and browsing on my macbook.

>>57973123
If it's completely transparent then there is Literally no difference between modern transparent gear. So why is it better again? In anything other than aesthetics it's the same thing.

>>57973239
because you can have transparent gear for much cheaper if you're buying used/vintage

high quality pcm gear is on-par these days. If there is a breakthrough in DSD I don't think anyone will be using analog anymore

>stereophonic receiver
Fancy word for stereo.

>>57973509
kek

>>57973088
You know you can plug a cd player into aux jacks right?

>>57973036
There was no magical digital processing and amplifying.
The analogue design had to be perfect.

Vacuum tubes.

>>57973036
That's subjective, but it can be argued that good vintage audio equipment is the same sound quality wise to good modern equipment due to the use of proven technology although the components used are getting smaller and more efficient, allowing a quality modern amp for example to be roughly the same size to a quality amp from the 70's but have more features that most vintage enthusiasts don't care for. Arguably, vintage audio gear has more bang for your buck as well as you can get a higher quality used amp as compared to going to the store to buy a new one.

>>57973088
Vintage audio gear such as amps have aux jacks. You can plug your phone or pc into it using an RCA to aux cord and actual bookshelf or larger style speakers blow the fuck out of pc speakers.

>>57973923
Vacuum tubes have nothing to do with it imo. Vintage audio gear that uses them is usually rare and expensive.

It's hipster meme tier stuff

>>57973036
I don't think that vintage necessarily sounds better, but the build quality is definitely better than modern stuff, where you can get either plastic or pay out the ass for metal.

Too bad /g/ is full no fun allowed™ mode and only enjoys boring new shit, and most of the people here don't really understand audio technology ironically enough.

>>57974311
I meant to write "doesn't necessarily sound better" instead of "necessarily sounds better"

>>57973036
It is just what you are used to.
I like Push-Pull Class B amplifiers, which got really good in the mid 80's.

>>57973254
really? I mean I know you can get cheap old amps and you might find something good if you're lucky, but even then you'll probably have to restore something. I can buy a $24 dac and hook it up to a $25 chink amp and I bet it would be audibly transparent vs and old amp driving the same speakers if the power of the output and volume was matched.

>>57973194
The advantage is the CD will invariably have been remastered as a casualty of the loudness war

1. anal log
2. it's very arguable that it isn't necessarily "better." high quality products are high quality products no matter the generation, in the end it'll come down to a preference of aesthetics. This is why you get guys listening to flacs on their DACs/interfaces, ppl buying nakamichi dragon's for cassette tapes, and then turn tables for records.

so tl;dr A E S T H E T I C

>>57973036
In an apples to apples comparison, generally, modern equipment sounds better.
Modern cheap stuff and mass-fi sounds overall better than cheap stuff and mass-fi from 20 - 40 years ago.
But, through depreciation, you can get higher end vintage equipment at current mass-fi prices.
The other issue is degradation. Parts (esp capacitors) wear out over time. Also parts and servicing on some vintage equipment is becoming harder and harder to find. I have a broken Yamaha B-1 amplifier that may never sing again as the output transistors are basically unobtanium.

>>57973509
back in the day mono receivers were common, so they obviously put it on there
it only got shortened to merely "stereo" after they became so common that everyone used them