Your feelings on vintage audio.

Ok, have hooked up the AR's and wow! I am very pleased with the overall sound.

I am currently listening to them as I write, Beethovens 9th, Academy of Ancient music. They have great tone. They just sound good.

I listened to a few tracks of Steely Dan, Two Against Nature, and again I was pleased. Just had a good overall sound. Had impact.

Listened to Shawn Colvin, Four Walls, my current reference. Her voice was great. Instruments sounded right. Again impact, immediacy.

Played a little Moody Blues. Every Good Boy Deserves Favor and as expected sounded like a typically not so good 70's recording. However it was more listenable through the AR's than the Audio Physics.

I usually use the 4 recordings above when wanting to compare. All listening done without the sub. It is great how good instruments sound. I even like how I notice some things, how they sound and the balance of the speaker.

So not quite as extended in the treble as the Audio Physics and maybe not as revealing. They are a little laid back, that New England sound? They have tuneful tight bass and good midrange qualities. They may not image as well as the Audio Physics, but do have depth, width and height. Instruments are a little more tied to the speaker but not at all distractingly so. Soundscape is pretty good. Non fatiguing. Not a better or worse presentation, just different.

Also these guys have, dare I say it, PRAT! Toe tapping, smile on the face non-fatiguing sound! I must say I am really pleased.

10/10ths high end sound? No but 9/10ths and really enjoyable.

I got to say, I'm not in this hobby to get all caught up in all the usual audio jargon, stress over whether or not my gear is doing all the things it is supposed to do according to whomever. Seems like a contradiction given my review but it was to illustrate that these things are really enjoyable regardless of how they measure up to the accepted norms by audio gods. If your favorite music sounds good, puts a smile on your face and you can forget all about what the gear is doing, then viola! You have arrived.

If you are interested in a little more info and review, here is a link provided by our fellow audionut, LoomisJohnson.

http://www.mollgaard.eu/images/AR_7_Equipment_Test_Hirsch_Houck_Labs.pdf

Can't wait to get my 299 back and hear that combo.

Thanks for reading my rant, will keep you posted.

Best,

Dave

i think older tube gear, e.g., cj mv 125, and older digital hardware, such as cal tempest and aria, as well as older panel speakers, such as dayton wright, klh 9, quad 57, etc, are preferable to anything produced today.

what i am saying is that a stereo system configured during the 1960's can afford more musical enjoyment (including older turntable/arm/cartridge), than any stereo syetm configured from in production components.

Mrtennis,

Would you care to elaborate? I, for one, am interested in your viewpoint.

Best,

Dave

Dave,
I think the answers to your original questions about vintage gear will be along the lines of 'it will sound good, provides excellent value for money, can be made even better with some updated parts, etc, but even then may not be the best that money can buy. But if you enjoy it, why not?'
My speakers are about 15yrs old. Everything else I am using is ~30yrs old. I like it. And value for money is great!

my ideal system, back in 1967, was 2 pair of stacked quads, a mac c 22 preamp, 2 pair of quad 15/watt per channel mono blocks, a thorens td 124, with ortofon arm and cartridge.

i found that system so timbrally accurate that i have not heard anything available today, which approaches the sound i had in 1967.

i think the problem stems from the design criteria of current manufacturers which focus upon resolution but is lacking in listenability.

many of the products in production are fatiguing after long term listening.