What is so called 'Classic' Hi-Fi and does any deserve the title?

[walpurgis]

So, we are now in an age where many Hi-Fi components are described as 'Classic' items. What is this term supposed to mean? I don't really like it as it often seems to be applied to second (or third) rate stuff thats just basically old and knackered. I think I can grasp it in relation to some more worthy examples of older equipment that have undoubtedly earned respect. Personally I'd cite Lowther amplifiers, but not their speakers as I can't live with them, just about any compression driver tweeter (pepperpot) Tannoy speaker, the original Sugden A21 amp, Leak and Quad valve amplifiers, Quad ESLs, Garrard 401/301, SME arms (even modern ones), Rogers BBC Monitors (even sweeter than Spendors), Some Radford gear, many earlier Luxman and Harman Kardon items, in fact quite a bit of American stuff and probably much more from around the world. Should we have a serious checklist and maybe exclude the real tat? Any views? Geoff.

[synsei]

Maybe a list of potential 'tat' might be useful (dons tin helmet and runs for cover)... :D

[walpurgis]

Maybe a list of potential 'tat' might be useful (dons tin helmet and runs for cover)... :D

Well, I don't suppose too many will be upset if I say the NAD 2030 and Audiolab 8000 series amps should go on the 'non-classic' list. They aren't Tat, but I've owned them and despite many people saying they were just fine, I found them thick and dull. The best thing I guess you could say is that were a 'safe' recommendation in their day.

Any other candidates out there?

I've got an unlikely 'Classic' to volunteer, as opposed to a Tat item, the original Mission 780 SE speakers from the eighties. They were relatively cheap but sounded remarkable. Full of life and punch.

I see you have a DH220. Much of David Hafler's designs would in my book be worthy of 'Classic' status. Dynaco made some great stuff and when it came on the market, the DH series solid state gear was certainly amongst the best at it's price. I've got a DH120 knocking about that I've never tried out, must give it a whirl actually. Geoff.

[bogle111]

Maybe a list of potential 'tat' might be useful (dons tin helmet and runs for cover)... :D

This a potentially volatile topic and one where all answers should be concluded with IMVHO.

There really needs to be the several headings
VINTAGE
CLASSIC
GOOD
GREAT
GREAT VFM
DIDN'T QUITE MAKE IT
with an explanation as to why. Vintage and Classic really only refer to age. Then there are price ranges to consider or not.

Declaring things as Classics can cause some to pay over the odds for something that is rare, but rarity does not make it the most desirable. Production numbers should have nothing to do with it. That is a whole different evaluation.

Examples:
Mission 770s (original) could be considered GOOD, but have heard them sound rubbish with the wrong equipment. NAD 3020 and 8000A with right equipment could sound pretty okay, and GREAT VFM.
A 401/301 TD124/II may be considered CLASSIC/VINTAGE. I value well made, performing kit, that can be taken back into service after 20 years of no use and the performance is perfect. An SP10II/III, for me are GREAT and transcend CLASSIC or VINTAGE.
The same goes for valves. Because it has valves a lot would classify them as CLASSIC or VINTAGE, but they are not all GREAT by a long shot.

There are many dealers and ex trade whose opinions on this I would value, because they had a great deal of partnering equipment at their disposal to "get the best out of" at the time of the individual item being brand new.

This has the makings of a really interesting thread, but a little more clarification is required I think, for me anyway. Sure it takes a bit of thought, but then it could be a really valuable thread. There are some though that are too busy washing and counting the last few hairs on their head to appreciate it.

One man's "tat" (inadequately judged) is another man's arguement, IMVHO. This is also a fact.

Regards
Pete

"There does seem to be a recurring theme among definitions: an antique/vintage can qualify as such based solely on age, while a classic requires a higher level of desirability, scarcity, or just plain je ne sais quoi." Bullsh!t - a higher level of performance is more appropriate.

[RobbieGong]

Classic Hi fi gear I agree should or could include good VFM and is usually agreed across much opinion to sound 'good'. I would definately put Mission 752's (particularly the Freedoms) in that category :)

[Puffin]

I've got an unlikely 'Classic' to volunteer, as opposed to a Tat item, the original Mission 780 SE speakers from the eighties. They were relatively cheap but sounded remarkable. Full of life and punch.


.

Thanks for the plug:D
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17765

[synsei]

I see you have a DH220. Much of David Hafler's designs would in my book be worthy of 'Classic' status. Dynaco made some great stuff and when it came on the market, the DH series solid state gear was certainly amongst the best at it's price. I've got a DH120 knocking about that I've never tried out, must give it a whirl actually. Geoff.

The DH220 has been completely recapped, the mains lead has been upgraded as have all the connections on the rear panel so it's not original but it does sound rather good. Sadly it is in semi-retirement as it is totally outclassed by Amptastic's wonderful little £60 T-Amp which could be destined to be a future classic.

I would propose the B&W DM2's as a bit of a classic. They have a wonderfully open and detailed sound and image really well. To my eyes they also look good too although they are not everyone's cup of tea.

Is the Classe DR5 a classic? I dunno really although it is a most excellent pre for all that :)

[walpurgis]

The DH220 has been completely recapped, the mains lead has been upgraded as have all the connections on the rear panel so it's not original but it does sound rather good. Sadly it is in semi-retirement as it is totally outclassed by Amptastic's wonderful little £60 T-Amp which could be destined to be a future classic.

I would propose the B&W DM2's as a bit of a classic. They have a wonderfully open and detailed sound and image really well. To my eyes they also look good too although they are not everyone's cup of tea.

Is the Classe DR5 a classic? I dunno really although it is a most excellent pre for all that :)

Totally agree about the DM2 speakers, it was a class leader and sounded remarkable. As opposed to the smaller DM4 which I didn't like at all. I watched David Bowers demonstrating the DM2 1/8th wave transmission line functioning at an audio show when they first came out (shows how old I am). The demo cabinet had a transparent side and in combination with a strobe light, when the speaker was fed with a suitable signal, you could follow the wave pulses moving along the damping material in the line and emerge in partial phase (1/4 phase actually) with the front radiations of the bass cone, very neat! Geoff.

[chelsea]

Well, I don't suppose too many will be upset if I say the NAD 2030 and Audiolab 8000 series amps should go on the 'non-classic' list. They aren't Tat, but I've owned them and despite many people saying they were just fine, I found them thick and dull. The best thing I guess you could say is that were a 'safe' recommendation in their day.

Any other candidates out there?

I've got an unlikely 'Classic' to volunteer, as opposed to a Tat item, the original Mission 780 SE speakers from the eighties. They were relatively cheap but sounded remarkable. Full of life and punch.

I see you have a DH220. Much of David Hafler's designs would in my book be worthy of 'Classic' status. Dynaco made some great stuff and when it came on the market, the DH series solid state gear was certainly amongst the best at it's price. I've got a DH120 knocking about that I've never tried out, must give it a whirl actually. Geoff.


I'd agree with that.

Classic is a personal thing,but for me it's anything that stood out from the crowd at the time and still beats most new hi fi.

I'd put the big tannoys and garrard 301/401 in there as well as thorens td124.

Plenty of others but for me these are the obvious ones.

[walpurgis]

I suppose I'd stir up a whole hornet's nest if I asked what pickup cartridges qualify as Classic Hi-Fi contenders ---- So I'd better not do that.

Mind you I used to love my ADCs, Ortofon SPU, Decca 4RC, Fidelty Research MC201 and Technics EPC 305 MC. Geoff.

[jazzpiano]

Hello,

I cannot say what I think is "classic" as I have not heard enough contenders (a few). I can only say what is some of the "best" sounding gear to my ears:

~Rogers Ls3/5as
~Daybreak Model 22 loudspeakers
~Mark Levinson ML2 25 watt mono-blocks
~Acoustat 2+2 electrostats
~BEL 2002 amplifier
~Michell Gyro w/ Dynavector tonearm and Goldring Electro MC cart.
~Spendor BC1/SP1
~Audire Parlando class A amplifier
~Well-Tempered Arm
~Discovery Signature cables

Best,
Barry

[jaym481]

I've used a Garrard 401, through Leak amp (via a passive switch and a conrad-johnson PV5 preamp as phono pre), to Tannoys, I think I know why these things are "Classics."

[Reffc]

I would say that "classic" defines any piece of equipment which has stood the test of time and remained in production largely unaltered for many years OR a piece if kit that by virtue of its design, quality, performance and accessibility (ie affordability) has set some sort of milestone or benchmark in hifi. My "classic" list would probably include:

Quad 33/303;
Denon DL103;
Garrard 301/401;
Transcriptors Hydraulic Reference deck;
Michell Gyrodec;
Quad ESLs;
Rotel RA920/930AX
Audiolab 8000A;
Decca London cartridges;
Shure V15 Mk3;
SME 3009 (any of them);
Thorens TD150;
Lenco GL75;
Rogers LS3/5A;
Harbeth loudspeakers (model HL);
Tannoy DC range (York, Lancaster, Cheviot,Devons)
Mission 760i;
Celestion Dittons;
Linn LP12;
Rega RB250;
SME 309/312/IV/V;
Technics SL1200;
Radford STA15/25;
Leak Stereo 20;
Naim Nait 5.

[walpurgis]

Paul, your list, which I know is not inclusive, probably matches that which most of us would have put together. Personally, I'd remove Audiolab though, because I've used them and found the sound uninspiring, instead I'd definitely add Lowther. I've had a couple of pairs and while their sound is not for me, they are certainly spectacular and have been around since we were cave dwellers. Geoff.

[pavalon]

The Quad ESL 57 is in my view the most iconic hi fi product ever and fully deserved the 'cult' staus following.
It would be at the top of my 'classic' list follow closely by any of the vintage Tannoy Monitor Gold speakers.

[michaelhigh]

Hello,

I cannot say what I think is "classic" as I have not heard enough contenders (a few). I can only say what is some of the "best" sounding gear to my ears:

~Rogers Ls3/5as
~Daybreak Model 22 loudspeakers
~Mark Levinson ML2 25 watt mono-blocks
~Acoustat 2+2 electrostats
~BEL 2002 amplifier
~Michell Gyro w/ Dynavector tonearm and Goldring Electro MC cart.
~Spendor BC1/SP1
~Audire Parlando class A amplifier
~Well-Tempered Arm
~Discovery Signature cables

Best,
Barry

This is my opinion, that quality can have any number of names but must sound coherant, if not superb. The kit will separate itself upon first listen. In the meantime a mere mention of good gear should suffice to open the door to the possibilities of a particular product, at least to me. If something rattles, it sucks! If something sits up and purrs, it distinguishes itself from the get go.:D

[walpurgis]

I note that many are including the LS3/5A speaker and while I'm not criticising this, I have a question. What is this thing with LS3/5A speakers? I know many people rave about them, but I just don't get it! What is it that produces the seeming reverence? I've used and heard many variants of the LS3/5A on the end of decent amplification etc. and whilst they sound pleasant, to me they just sound small and they are definitely not neutral. A pair of old Sonus Faber Electas for instance, will offer great delicacy, sound less coloured, will image just as well or better, offer more transparency, much more punch and grip, sweeter treble, better power handling and sensitivity and cost you less (just). I'm sure the LS3/5A do belong in a list of 'Classics', but I would not keep a pair myself. Mind you I'm a Tannoy man and that's a whole different ball game. Geoff.

[jaym481]

When you're a "Tannoy man" a lot of well-regarded speakers sound "small." I heard a pair of small Harbeths a while ago, I forget the model, but they were LS3/5 sized. The first thing I remember was "where's the *presence*?" They imaged well for two-ways, and did mid range very well, but they demonstrated to me why bass is a fundamental part of music that I just can't do without.

[morris_minor]

Back in the dim and distant past I had an Amstrad amplifier. That was definitely a classic. A classic piece of Lord S'ralan's finest crap . . . :lol:

[walpurgis]

Back in the dim and distant past I had an Amstrad amplifier. That was definitely a classic. A classic piece of Lord S'ralan's finest crap . . . :lol:

The stuff of nightmares! I know, I've been there too. We used to call them "Amsturds".

By the way Bob, is that actually your 'slightly' modified Minor? Shame the bonnet won't shut!

[morris_minor]

By the way Bob, is that actually your 'slightly' modified Minor? Shame the bonnet won't shut!

I wish! :lol: (No, just a picture nicked off the 'net. . . )

[nat8808]

"Vintage" and "Classic" does mean "secondhand" these days.

You see 90s stuff called "vintage" FFS, what's that all about? Is anyone taken in by that?

A classic should be like a good representative example of a style of type of something from an era. So I don't think anything rare should really be considered classic in general terms.