Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Comparing my '80s era setup to current equipment

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 6:48:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

I am using a NAD 7225 receiver and KEF C30 speakers that I bought in the
mid-80s. I bought a Sony CD player at the same time, but it died years
ago and now I play CDs through my inexpensive DVD player with no
noticeable loss of quality. I am starting to think about buying new
equipment and wonder how my old equipment compares to what is currently
available.

I used to think this setup sounded great and my only complaint was that
the speakers were overly sensitive to their own placement and the
placement of the listener. Now it just doesn't sound great anymore. I
don't know if its in my head or not. It can't be that I am bored with my
music because I add new music and even new genres to my collection all
the time. I checked to see if the speakers were in phase and everything
else I could think of.

My most specific question is: how much would I have to spend to get
better sound than my current setup? More general questions would be if
technology has marched very far ahead during these last 20 years and if
this type of equipment suffers from age. Also, I spent around $600 for
this stuff at time of purchase. If I spent the same for replacements,
how much better would they sound?

I am also thinking of upgrading my setup piecemeal. I am thinking of
first adding a subwoofer and then later replacing one of the existing
components and then later replacing what was left. Would adding a
subwoofer make sense? Is one of these two parts so ancient that it must
go first, before anything else is bought?

TIA
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 12:41:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"hoarse with no name" <no@2spam.com> wrote in message
news:no-558DE6.14485024082005@cnews.newsguy.com

> I am using a NAD 7225 receiver and KEF C30 speakers that
> I bought in the mid-80s. I bought a Sony CD player at the
> same time, but it died years ago and now I play CDs
> through my inexpensive DVD player with no noticeable loss
> of quality. I am starting to think about buying new
> equipment and wonder how my old equipment compares to
> what is currently available.

If nothing else, your old equipment is about 20 years old,
and should be gone over by a tech to see if any parts have
degraded.

> I used to think this setup sounded great and my only
> complaint was that the speakers were overly sensitive to
> their own placement and the placement of the listener.
> Now it just doesn't sound great anymore. I don't know if
> its in my head or not. It can't be that I am bored with
> my music because I add new music and even new genres to
> my collection all the time. I checked to see if the
> speakers were in phase and everything else I could think
> of.

You might consider borrowing a newer receiver and see how
things sound.

> My most specific question is: how much would I have to
> spend to get better sound than my current setup? More
> general questions would be if technology has marched very
> far ahead during these last 20 years and if this type of
> equipment suffers from age. Also, I spent around $600 for
> this stuff at time of purchase. If I spent the same for
> replacements, how much better would they sound?

Probably better presuming no degradation of your equipment.
Speaker technology has marched forward in the past 20 or so
years.

> I am also thinking of upgrading my setup piecemeal. I am
> thinking of first adding a subwoofer and then later
> replacing one of the existing components and then later
> replacing what was left. Would adding a subwoofer make
> sense?

If all is well with your old equipment, a subwoofer will
provide considerably bass extension which is, if done well,
a good thing.

>Is one of these two parts so ancient that it must
> go first, before anything else is bought?

Nothing a prioir must go. But, you might find some newer
technology, particularly in the subwoofer or replacment
speakers, that could be attractive.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 6:53:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:56adnb2Ck-l7kJLeRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
> Speaker technology has marched forward in the past 20 or so
> years.

Certainly, but there are plenty of 20 year old speakers still performing
better than many modern units. The main factor will be the cost in each
case. If cost is not a consideration, then there is no problem getting
improved performance. If cost is an issue (as it usually is) then you should
do a proper comparison before making assumptions.

MrT.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 10:35:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

hoarse with no name wrote:

> I am using a NAD 7225 receiver and KEF C30 speakers that
> I bought in the mid-80s.

I would not rush replacing those loudspeakers. I would want to try with
an alternative receiver, Cambridge, Rotel comes to mind as manufacturers
I own stuff by that seems likeable out of the box sans modification.

> TIA


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
!