Prev Next

Yesterday I posted about vintage audio. One of the first questions asked, "what's vintage mean?" That's a great question. Vintage to me is likely different than vintage to someone a lot younger. I had replied that anything in the 1990's and older was vintage. I think that's inaccurate. With the benefit of further thought, I would suggest anything in the 1970's is vintage to me. But that's because I am bordering on vintage myself. What might a 30's-something consider vintage? If I do the math, products half my age are vintage. By that same logic, a 30 year old would consider anything from the year 2,000 as vintage–a 30 year gap. Definitions are, for the most part, relative. What is old to me is ancient to others. What sounds great to some might sound like crap to me. It is truly hard to define what's high end, what's this, or what's that. Most of us can tell, when pressed, if something sounds live or canned. I'll give you an example. In my home we have only background music available in the living room (an equity trade for my downstairs home theater). It's great background music, but nothing approaching high end. Most guests comment how great the music sounds in that room (I did add a sub and used decent speakers). I smile and ask them, "does it sound like there are musicians playing in the room?" I am always given a curious look. "Well, no, how could it?" Yet the same question posed to guests in Music Room One gives the opposite answer. Defining common ground for language has always been a challenge. It's all so relative.
Back to blog
Paul McGowan

Founder & CEO

Never miss a post


Related Posts

1 of 2