While visiting a friend recently, he began showing off his brand new, gee-whiz Pioneer receiver. He indicated that it was rated for 100WPC, but the salesman told him that was a “conservative” rating . I could hardly keep from snickering, as I had just finished picking up my vintage 1978 harmon/kardon model 430 receiver, which had been fully restored at considerable (and well spent) cost. I hooked up his CD player and his speakers, and proceded to “blow his mind”. After the brief demonstration, he conceded that the older unit did sound much fuller and generally better. “But,” he added “you’re old h/k probably has twice as much power.”

I showed him the spec sheet, which quite clearly stated that the unit was rated for a mere 25 WPC.

He has since returned the Pioneer, and bought his own vintage h/k off ebay.

Not everyone is an audiophile, and cannot tell the difference between 25 vintage watts and 100 cheap watts, but this poll is for those who can. Share your experiences and points of view.

all new is way better. they work much more efficiently more sound with less power to it. well so long as you get at least decent speakers such as logitech or creative. something of comprable value.

All new. They are much more efficient for a sorround sound setup, IMO. You don't want 100 cheap watts, you should go for something with quality, or go for the vintage. Then again I probably can't talk about it because I have only heard really cheap vintages.

Yes.

... jokes apart, I tend to prefer new equipment. I voted "yes" just because I
thought it was a brilliant answer

My vote shall go to that of "Mostly New"... I don't mind vintage... but I prefer the new stuff, plus... its also what kids my age are into...