How much has the SQ of gear improved in the last quarter century?

Cheeky.

 

With total respect that might be unfair. Many are serious about this hobby and "make the rounds" to dealers, audio shows, local friends and clubs and have been doing so for quite a while.

 

Indeed.

 

True. But I still maintain that only a tiny few (at best) really have a global, encyclopedic view of audio gear over the last century; and even if they do, it's tainted by their own biases and personal tastes ("Tubes crush solid-state", "CD kills vinyl", etc.)

This is the hill I'll die on.

 

agreed there are bias everywhere. the OP is asking about the last quarter century too. 15-25 years ago or so most people had their old hardware or home theater systems.

 

By the way, thanks to everyone for participating in this thread and keeping things civil. I am enjoying it a lot, learning, and enjoy hearing everyones opinion based on their experiences.

 

Yup, none of us are audio encyclopedias, don't really want to be either. And your right there are a percentage that are biased to what they purchase, but there are many open minded knowledgable and intelligent audiophiles on this site, one soon learns who they are.

 

Some speaker manufacturers have "modernized " the sound of their speakers,particularly over the last 15 years.I think a little extra sparkle has been brought into the recipe for a lot of longtime mfgs...and for the better imho

 

+1

And I'll freely admit there are giant areas within audio where my experience is zero, sadly; for example I'd still love to hear some cool hi-eff speakers w. purist SET amps systems. I'd love to hear a restored Garrard 301. An Oswald Mills system. Shindo. Audio Note. I could go on -- I kind of live in the BBC, British audio, solid-state world; do I think it's the be-all end-all? Noooooo.

 

Thats what makes this a great hobby, no limits really.
I've had a couple Garrard 301's in the past, great little machines, my daughter still has one.

 

Modern tube amp (Rogue), tubes (KT 120) have brought out the best in my 35 year old Cornwalls, no sibilance and huge dynamics. Nothing wanting.

 

Out of curiosity(something Ive wondered in the past but never looked into), can someone comment on how the sound of the B&W 805 series has changed over the various revisions, and when those models were sold? Is the "general consensus" that the current version is the best sounding? And that more recent versions sound better than older versions? The only 805 I have heard were the ones available around 1998 when I bought my CDM-1SE. I really wanted the 805, mostly because of the smoother high end (Nautilus tweeter) but they were twice as much or more. Thanks!

 

This is such an important point and not just for those entering the hobby-- to me, the key is access and exposure. That's one of the reasons why I originally refrained from posting to this thread. I think one needs to be pretty specific about particular gear. I know people that treasure antiquarian horns, ancient tube amps and the like. It's very hard to duplicate that stuff today at almost any price.
In the decades I've been doing this, I've seen "trends": one such trend in the high end today seems to be these rock solid cabinets out of billet or composite to make them as inert as possible, an approach which is the polar opposite of the designs where the cabinet is treated like a musical instrument.
I love the fact that we can share info on the Internet but it is no substitute for seat time. That said, I'm remiss in not making the trips that I had originally slated pre-Covid and are now possible-- to visit friends with different state of the art systems, just for the pleasure of experiencing them.
I do think we are in a golden age given the variety of equipment at all price points that probably sounds better than "good" if properly set up in a room. And cost-wise, a lot of it isn't "uber" fi, which has gotten to be nutty money. More tone arms and cartridges than ever- ditto turntables. Cheap-ish DACs that make music.
As a reminder for myself, I have a modern SET/horn/vinyl system upstairs with all the bells and whistles and a vintage system downstairs made up of components that are roughly 50 or more years old. Is one "better" than the other-- yes in some ways, but that vintage system is quite the ear-opener for someone who has never experienced the old Quad stat, properly refurbished and set up. Is it something I would recommend to the casual listener? Nope. Is it dirt cheap? Nope. But to me, in some ways, it shows how far we haven't come since the '50s.

 

" general consensus " good one, lol.

Haven't seen that in 11 years.

 

Well said Bill
Lots of thought provoking text there.

 

Magico vs. Harbeth? Great points!

 

Perhaps everybody needs to define exactly what they mean by 'better'. Just throwing the word around means nothing without context and specifics. I could say I'm 'better' than I've ever been, but of course that's nonsense.

 

For me "better" is making the highest percentage of my music sound good in MY room...as opposed to making a few "audiophile" recordings sound good at the expense of the rest my music.Pretty much 100% at this point having said that,i know there is more expensive and better gear out there(i have actually owned much more expensive gear).Room size,preffered volume level,listening distance ect all come into play when answering "whats better"

 

Hearing loss typically starts in our 20's, and has been documented in two-thirds of adults aged 70 years and older. I got my first decent stereo when I was in college. I can tell you my hearing today, while average for my age (70+) is not what it was 25 years ago, let alone when I was in college. My Dynaco A25s and AR Amp sounded great in 1971, and I think they probably were excellent for their era. But how much of that was my 21 year old ears???

 

Fair. I'll make a point using the Quads. I not only had the original '57 (which I still have, restored) but the later '63 which was Crosby modded (I don't know if you remember Crosby, they worked with Spectral and Entec, using the Quad 63, as modified, for the midrange).
Anyway, the '63, even stock, was a "better" all arounder-it produced more apparent bass, played louder without arcing (had a protection circuit) and didn't have some of the limitations of the original '57, like a very narrow sweet spot which forced a "head in a vise" listening position. So it was the "better" speaker for most people. But, when I moved, I kept the '57s and sent them off to be restored and got rid of the Crosby 63. It just didn't have the same midrange coherence and utter transparency of the original '57. The '63 could do "spooky real" with the right material, but up against the '57, it sounded "reproduced." So in that instance, the "better" speaker-- the '63, which was more useable overall, wasn't really better to me, where it counted-- the eerie quality of hearing the midrange with absolutely nothing between you and the music. (Most people who had '57s get rid of them at some point and then buy them again, which tells you something).

 

I dunno - I still have my original AR amplifier and Wharfedale W60D speakers which went with it, and I still use them in a secondary system, and as far as my senses go, they still sound pretty much identical to when they were new in 1968. I still remember the first impression of how my then-new Altec A7-500 speakers sounded with the first recording I played on them. I don't think hearing changes has much to do with it except perhaps for me not having a preference for very loud music for anything but a brief period.

 

One of the local shops employees had a set of 57's restored and had them in the store to check them out...they do some things so well that i don't think time or technology has bettered them yet!...and yep pretty sure his boss told him to take them home pretty quick...bad for speaker sales lol.

 

Fortunately i had my basement finished with a large listening room,but listen fairly close.The speakers don't "see" any walls for quite a distance...other than that just gear choices that work for me with my music choices in my room...ymmv...pics in my profile if you're interested

 

I've purchased plenty of gear, both from audio companies I've worked at and from others which I've kept for only a short while and ended up selling because what I had before sounded better to me. "Technically" in the eyes of the manufacturer the newer product was 'better' but my ears told me otherwise. A prime example is when I was an engineer at Altec Lansing - when they came out with their new 'Tangerine' phase plug compression drivers, I purchased a set immediately at employee price because all the technical data and the plots I saw from their anechoic chamber promised much better frequency extension. The reality is that in my system and to my ears, they sounded hard and shrill. I sold them to another engineer within a week. Around the same time, they introduced their 'new improved' speaker drivers with ferrite magnets. They did all the marketing blurb on how these new drivers were 'superior' to the old ones. The truth of the matter was much more mundane - the Alnico magnets which they had been using since day one suddenly became very hard and expensive to obtain, so they were basically forced to change to ferrite like the rest of the industry. The 'improvement' was not real and the change was of necessity.

 

1/3rd of people over 70 don't have hearing loss. You may be in that lucky 1/3rd. Wish I was!
The AR Amp had great specs and lots of power, but it was an early SS design and, in my opinion (YMMV), pretty dead-sounding by today's standards. I replaced it with a Fisher 500C, which I liked a lot better, even though it had only 40-50 watts. Still, I loved the simple design of the AR Amp, and wish I still had it. Such a classic.