Chance are that your own earring will degrade as fast as the loudspeakers themselves especially if you are over forty .............
20 responses Add your response
I think Rocc1007 says that in jest.
Recently I had to replace my NAD 4300 tuner as it just stopped working (after a couple of decades) and replaced it with a Marantz ST-6000 which has all the bells and whistles one could hope for (presets, remote, great selectivity) and a very positive opinion from fmtunerinfo.com. Having said that, it's frequency range is 20Hz to 15KHz and these 60 year old ears can most definitely hear the upper end roll off and it was offputting at first, to say the least.
I got it for a great price being an old demo but I'm still looking for another tuner that can at least replicate the sound of that old NAD. I really miss the air, ambience, sparkle and whatever else lurks up there in that other 5KHz that was left out in the design of the Marantz.
As for your question, the surrounds of the speakers won't be up to par so if it at least looks to be in decent shape, I wouldn't push it with the SPLs. :-)
All the best,
Doah!, I'm channeling Homer Simspon as I pen this.
I didn't know that. Going back over the reviews of the Marantz tuner I see that it's geared for a great midband and bass so maybe it's that that the NAD lacked which made it seem able to go higher.
Thank you Phasecorrect for saving me the trouble and costs of seeking out a new tuner. :-)
All the best,
As you bring more LPs, more DVDs, more books, more magazines and more of anything with barcodes on them into the house the sound will degrade to the point where it sounds very compressed, very generic and very amusical. Kind of like it sounds right now, most likely, now that I think about it. No offense intended.
Nonoise, I've owned alot of tuners and in house demo'd (sp?) quite a few as well. There is a quite a difference in sound quality. I'd say get another tuner. If you liked your 4300, get another. I enjoyed the NAD 1700 pre/tuner for a long time. Having tried out the ST-6000, was not impressed at all. But alot in this hobby has to do w/synergy. I'm enjoying greatly my bargain remote-control AMC T7 tuner bought for a whopping $20! Sounds fantastic w/the other components in my system. Go figure....this tuner got the most a terrible review! (Probably a defitive unit?) Anyway, get another tuner to enjoy, life is too short. Bill
Nonoise - I like how your perspective shifted from the Marantz lacking the highs to it adding mid and bass. The change in perspective caused you to no longer think of it as not sounding as good as the NAD. Now that your assumption has changed for the Marantz, you will likely enjoy it rather than wish it sounded like the NAD. You may still prefer the NAD, but I am fascinated by how our brains work.
I'm not sure about tweeters in my Hyperions HPS-938 but midrange uses ferrofluid for suspension. Ferrofluid dries over time and has to be replaced but I don't know if it is 10-20 or 30-40 years. Also, some speakers have electrolytic caps in xover but it should last perhaps 40 years in room temperature.
Mceljo-good point. My first reaction was something like "who covered my speakers in cheesecloth?", it was that big of a difference. Although I've written off the tuner since I got it for so little, I'm still not used to the trade off in sound. Having a bigger and fuller mid to bass response is nice but it seems to dominate the already limited frequencies in a disproportionate way. I guess one can say it has that classic Marantz house sound from the 70s. I once inserted an old Marantz receiver (I believe it was a 2030) into my system and the sound was very similar: big, full and wooly.
Like Kotta pointed out, different tuners will sound different in the context of any given system, just like any other component.
All the best,
Hate to be a buzzkill...but FM frequency cuts out @ 15 kHz...so the improvements attributed to the Nad are largely imaginative...that said, its a very good tuner."
Nonoise - I like how your perspective shifted from the Marantz lacking the highs to it adding mid and bass. The change in perspective caused you to no longer think of it as not sounding as good as the NAD. Now that your assumption has changed for the Marantz, you will likely enjoy it rather than wish it sounded like the NAD. You may still prefer the NAD, but I am fascinated by how our brains work."
Why the assumption that the change is imagined? That's pretty far fetched. He listened to the NAD tuner on a regular basis for over 20 years. I think its far more likely his guess that the extension in the HF's are too blame is wrong, and that there is some other real cause for the difference between the 2 tuners.
Perhaps a another way to phrase the OP's Q is whether current model speakers use better materials and employ better technology that the SOTA of 40 years ago. And hence, sound better than the old stuff.
I suspect the answer is in the affirmative. Stated differently, if the OP was to stack an old pair of B&Ws against an equivalent current model, I surmise the newer model very well might sound better.
Technology has advanced across the board.
Short post-script to my last post.
If the OP's Q also goes to whether old speakers mechanically wear out like old car shocks over time, I surmise that some speaker parts will degrade over time. For example, the caps used in the cross-over may change values. Also, speaker surrounds may disintegrate over time. Possibly voice coil spiders too.
In short entropy is part of the natural world. Ain't no stopping it.
Zd542 - I didn't suggest that the change wasn't real. I did, however suggest that when his perspective changed he no longer viewed the Marantz as lacking highs, but rather have a more full mid and bass range. The sound of the Marantz was constant, but his assumption about it changed resulting in a different experience.
I just sold a 33 year old pair of Yamaha NS1000M speakers from my second
sound system. To my ears they still sounded just fine, even after 33 years
frequent use and replacement of two blown tweeter 10 years ago (don't
ask). Interestingly, my main speakers are B&W N801. The NS1000M, to my
ears, sounded very good in comparison to the N801; definitely not as broad
a frequency range, lucid or dynamic, but none the less, very good. The only
reason I sold the Yamaha's after 33 years was; the people who purchased
my home this year, specifically asked to purchase them, they liked the sound
and look that much! Interestingly, I sold them for more than I paid 33 years
I am sure your N802 speakers will sound just fine in 10-30 years time.
The sound of the system can change quite a bit day to day and we often don't notice. How can you expect an audiophile who's constantly changing things around to notice a change in speakers over a very long time? Doesn't make sense. He will have replaced all his cables and all his electronics at least twice! Hel-loo!
I guess what started it was watching how to realign a coil video. It made me think of what else could happen including maybe the crossovers getting out of spec through corrosion or heat.Seeing how cartridges have a lifespan of 2000 hours, if speakers degraded, how would one know how old they actually were? Gathering by some of the last responses, I take it,not to worry if a speaker is 20-30 years old.
Zd542 - I didn't suggest that the change wasn't real. I did, however suggest that when his perspective changed he no longer viewed the Marantz as lacking highs, but rather have a more full mid and bass range. The sound of the Marantz was constant, but his assumption about it changed resulting in a different experience."
I think you may be right. Reading Nonoise's posts, I thought he was kidding. Reading them again, I'm not so shure. If he was being serious, I agree with you.