Vintage Amps - (why) are they 'better'?

Hattigol

I was looking at a vintage amp on here recently and started wondering why an older amp would be more expensive than a newer one. The merits or otherwise of vintage guitars are often discussed on here - too often, some might say - but I can't recall much in the way of discussion about the merits of vintage amplifiers over modern ones.

It seems to be the way, certainly from a pricing perspective, that vintage amps are more desirable but what would be the arguments in support of that? I don't know if such arguments exist - is it just accepted that older equals better? Is it that components that can no longer be replicated, the 'worn-in' factor, the wiring methods, the glue used in the cabinets?

I genuinely have no idea...

ecc83

Doesn't just apply to guitar amps...Guitars, violins, cars, Quad ll power amps. All can command a price several times their original cost.

Market forces innit?

I personally doubt whether many of those 'vintage' amps ARE "better" than a well designed modern one but then there is nowt as subjective as sound and it seems no shortage of daft t***s with more money than sense!

Dave.

Modulus_Amps

I just bought a vintage Sound City 120 with a full load of valves, handwired like a hiwatt, Partridge made transformers etc for £350 - you can't buy the parts for that.

Point is not all vintage gear sells for a lot, only the stuff that is really desirable/collectible. If there is demands/desire for a certain amp then the prices go up.

impmann

Why are they 'better'? They aren't really.

However, because certain components are no longer available and the companies that made the original transformers no longer exist etc etc, they may sound 'different' to the reissues.

Whether or not you believe those differences to be important may mean you are prepared to pay more for them than a newer amp.

Frankly, I'd rather take a modern amp down the Dog and Spanner for gig because 1) its likely to be more reliable, 2) its likely to sound better at a lower volume (older amps were designed to be "backline" and therefore some into their own at volume) and 3) more replaceable if a pissed up twat slings a pint of Carlsberg into it whilst enjoying the gig.

RickLucas

It depends first of all on how you define new and vintage. In new and vintage amps, there are good and bad. If, by "new" you mean  "reissue" and by "vintage", you mean "original", then vintage is better, because the older amps were built with better components and are easier to service and more reliable because of the way they were built. Components can be replicated, and there are manufacturers who use such components, but generally, the big companies such as Fender and Marshall use the cheapest parts they can get away with. 

ecc83

Modulus_Amps said:

I just bought a vintage Sound City 120 with a full load of valves, handwired like a hiwatt, Partridge made transformers etc for £350 - you can't buy the parts for that.

Point is not all vintage gear sells for a lot, only the stuff that is really desirable/collectible. If there is demands/desire for a certain amp then the prices go up.

This is true. Anyone who watches Antiques Roadshow will quickly learn that 'old', even a 1000 years old dose not necessarily mean fabulously expensive. Then, look at the monies Drew Pritchard gets for battered, rusty tin signs! Intrinsic value FA!

Dave.

Gassage

So I guess I'm well qualified from an ownership perspective to comment-

1. They aren't better, but because they're what were used at the time, they fit our mental vision of what sounds right for certain things. (see Dave and Tim's notes)

2. They replicate this better simply because they're identical and reissues don't have same components or build.

3. 'Sounds better' is purely a subjective measure. My 1965 DR sounds best for DR things but does it sound 'better' for Lifeson? No. It's only if you have context that you can then measure objectively.

4. Vintage amps are fast becoming a bit of a hair shirt for me- I had 7 grand invested in my Vibroverb and I knew the speakers and OT were as wobbly as hell- the fact is, it was a matter of time until a new OT and a 40% value crash- and I was lucky Justin H offered me 11k sold unseen. My 65 DR always has a minor issue of some sort and if it were not for the kudos and also the fact it sounds exactly as I want a DR to, I would bin in.

5. If you transported yourself back to 1960 and Marc Bartel bunged a TK on the table, jaws would hit the floor, I assure you.

6. A vintage guitar is a piece of wood, basically. It won't break very much and the worn feel is what we love. An amp is different and romance means we overlook that. As a simple parallel, you'd be happy taking your old music to listen in the car, but you'd not choose to reproduce that music through an 8 track over a CD......

7. Modern large scale amp builders rarely build focused amps like older amps are unless they're specific reissues. They need broad brush appeal, so you end up with some compromise unless you go boutique.

In short, I am a bit over vintage amps...

bertie

Modulus_Amps said:

I just bought a vintage Sound City 120 

MentalSharps

People like to collect stuff, for a variety of reasons, some of it the feeling it gives them to own something that other people don't have, some of it for the feeling that they have a unique or special sound, or it could be to preserve the value of the culture. Vintage stuff works as a prime candidate across all 3 of those, since it's of a limited supply. Due to the way history works, it's inevitable a mythology will be created around it that won't take much work to maintain (unlike say, a new manufacturer trying to create a mythology around new products).

So with a limited supply of vintage items (declining even, as time goes on not all vintage items are maintained)  means value will always increase, as long as the mythology can be maintained - and vintage based mythologies are usually self-sustaining. (outside of the relatively new phenomenon of revelations of certain forms of impropriety - slavery, rape/sexual abuse - that are able to put a dent in the value of mythology bubbles to a degree).

In the case of vintage amps, from what I can tell a part of it comes down to component drift. Apparently over long periods of time, the values of the electronics parts drift away from their original values, creating noticeable differences in sound. It's not certain that the differences in sound are necessarily better than the original circuit values. But these differences can provide the basis for the maintenance of the mythology, because a claim can be made that they are better due to an irreplaceable "mojo" -- ie modern amp builders simply cannot build amps to these same specifications for whatever reason -- can't find those parts anymore, at those specific values, etc etc. I wonder whether an amp guru would actually believe that or not, I'm sure there must be some elements of truth in it, if not true as a whole. 

But that's why you buy vintage, you're buying a part of story, not just the amp or item itself. You're buying the story of that amp, which is part of a larger story of that amp in the context of the period of time it was made, and the significance of that period of time, within the larger story of the genre/music/instrument/culture, that is maintained by like minded people who are also shareholders in that story (which is technically all of us, who are interested enough to post on forums about it, regardless of whether we spend our money or not).

This is not to diminish it, generally speaking, the same dynamics apply to every area across Western civilisation.  History is maintained by continuing and evolving discourses around historical artefacts. In a modern capitalist society that principle expands from the museums and universities, through a whole web of consumerism, ie to us, via those who can afford to, who want to invest their money somewhere more interesting than other places they could spend it.

It's actually a positive thing because it creates a value to guitar culture and history that can sustain against economic pressures like rapid technological developments or shifts in societal values, preserving the original set of cultural values understood within the context of a period of history through the artefacts that persist from that era and bring value.

If all you're doing is looking for the best sounding amp you can get for the money however, I doubt buying vintage would be the answer.

richardhomer

Almost no name players use vintage amps in anger. Hence, I’m not convinced they ‘are’ better.

Sassafras

All the cables are properly 'burnt in'.
Any audiophile nutcase could've told you that.

Gassage

richardhomer said:

Almost no name players use vintage amps in anger. Hence, I’m not convinced they ‘are’ better.

- Gilmour
- Bonamassa
- Glenn Frey
- Deacon Frey
- SRV
- Felder
- Craig Ross
- Clapton
- May
- Gallagher (Rory or Noel!)
- Peter Buck
- Neil Young 
- Eric Johnson
- Reeves Gabrels

!!!!!

JJMan

Just like collecting old televisions 

Jimbro66

richardhomer said:

Almost no name players use vintage amps in anger. Hence, I’m not convinced they ‘are’ better.

Name players having used particular vintage amps on iconic recordings is part of their desirability.

Nostalgia also plays a part. Older guitarists with more disposable income may be happy to pay a high price now for an amp that they either used or craved in their younger days.

Vintage amps don’t necessarily sound ‘better’ but they may well sound different to their modern equivalents so if a player prefers the vintage sound then to him/her they are better.

JJMan

BTW most components go out of tolerance so unless you can find exact replacements you're not going to "hear" how it used to sound back in it's hay-day 

impmann

I imagine that if you got into a time machine, and transported a Line6 Spider 75 back to Woodstock, a fair few of the "greats" would have fallen over themselves to use it - something that had all those cool sounds, didn't sound like it was frying bacon in the background and had loads of gain...

Likewise, I doubt if you travelled back through time and showed Kossoff a plexi reissue he'd say it sounded shite (or for that matter asked his opinion on a modern Gibson R9 he'd be uncomplimentary).

Basically - what I'm saying is, we've become incredibly cork-sniffy about all this stuff. I'm sure that back in the day, when these vintage units were used for these seminal recordings/performances the performers involved would have been just as brilliant and the sound would have been just as inspiring to them and us had they used modern equivalents.

richardhomer

Gassage said:

richardhomer said:

Almost no name players use vintage amps in anger. Hence, I’m not convinced they ‘are’ better.

- Gilmour
- Bonamassa
- Glenn Frey
- Deacon Frey
- SRV
- Felder
- Craig Ross
- Clapton
- May
- Gallagher (Rory or Noel!)
- Peter Buck
- Neil Young 
- Eric Johnson
- Reeves Gabrels

!!!!!

EC’s current amps are Dumble-built tweed twins, his previous ones were Fenders, built by John Suhr.

Can’t vouch for the rest (except perhaps Rory Gallagher, Glen Frey and SRV who’re using no amps) but a lot of players are using Two Rocks, Lazy Js, Matchless, Mesas, modern Marshalls, reissue Fenders, Tone Kings, etc.

impmann

richardhomer said:

Gassage said:

richardhomer said:

Almost no name players use vintage amps in anger. Hence, I’m not convinced they ‘are’ better.

- Gilmour
- Bonamassa
- Glenn Frey
- Deacon Frey
- SRV
- Felder
- Craig Ross
- Clapton
- May
- Gallagher (Rory or Noel!)
- Peter Buck
- Neil Young 
- Eric Johnson
- Reeves Gabrels

!!!!!

EC’s current amps are Dumble-built tweed twins, his previous ones were Fenders, built by John Suhr.

Can’t vouch for the rest (except perhaps Rory Gallagher, Glen Frey and SRV who’re using no amps) but a lot of players are using Two Rocks, Lazy Js, Matchless, Mesas, modern Marshalls, reissue Fenders, Tone Kings, etc.

Little known fact, Joe B uses a FLY3 when nobody is watching... doesn't sound that dissimilar to his live tone tbh...

https://fb.watch/de0SCn4CH0/

CaseOfAce

Gassage said:

richardhomer said:

Almost no name players use vintage amps in anger. Hence, I’m not convinced they ‘are’ better.

- Gilmour
- Bonamassa
- Glenn Frey
- Deacon Frey
- SRV
- Felder
- Craig Ross
- Clapton
- May
- Gallagher (Rory or Noel!)
- Peter Buck
- Neil Young 
- Eric Johnson
- Reeves Gabrels

!!!!!

Ok - c'mon ...admit it...who else on here had to wikipedia who Craig Ross was? 

bertie

CaseOfAce said:

Ok - c'mon ...admit it...who else on here had to wikipedia Craig Ross ? 

he wasnt the only one I had to google, the only Reeves I'd ever heard of was a building supplies co, back in the 70s

EricTheWeary

richardhomer said:

Gassage said:

richardhomer said:

Almost no name players use vintage amps in anger. Hence, I’m not convinced they ‘are’ better.

- Gilmour
- Bonamassa
- Glenn Frey
- Deacon Frey
- SRV
- Felder
- Craig Ross
- Clapton
- May
- Gallagher (Rory or Noel!)
- Peter Buck
- Neil Young 
- Eric Johnson
- Reeves Gabrels

!!!!!

EC’s current amps are Dumble-built tweed twins, his previous ones were Fenders, built by John Suhr.

Can’t vouch for the rest (except perhaps Rory Gallagher, Glen Frey and SRV who’re using no amps) but a lot of players are using Two Rocks, Lazy Js, Matchless, Mesas, modern Marshalls, reissue Fenders, Tone Kings, etc.

Some of those were dead before their amps even became vintage! 

May was using custom built AC30s last time I looked. Gabrels usually tours with Audio Kitchen amps.