Is it valid that audio equipment from the 1970s sound better than modern equipment?

That depends on which piece of audio equipment from the 1970s, is being compared with which piece of equipment from today.

If the equipment consists of a top-quality turntable from the late 1970s, compared to the most basic MP3-player from today, and if we assume for the moment that the type of sound file which is being played on the Portable Audio Player, is in fact an MP3 File recorded at a bit-rate of 128kbps, then the answer would be Yes. Top-quality turntables from the late 1970s were able to outperform that.

OTOH, If the audio equipment from today is a Digital Audio Player, that boasts 24-bit sound, that only happens to be able to play MP3 Files, but that is in fact playing a FLAC File, then it becomes very difficult for even the better audio equipment from the 1970s to match that.

Top-Quality Audio Equipment from the late 1970s, would have cost over $1000 for one component, without taking into account, how many dollars that would have been equivalent to today. The type of Digital Audio Player I described cost me C$ 140.- plus shipping, plus handling, in 2018.

Also, there is a major distinction, between any sort of equipment which is only meant to reproduce an Electronic signal, and equipment which is Electromechanical in nature, including speakers, headphones, phonographs… ‘The old Electromechanical technology’ was very good, except for the basic limitation, that they could not design good bass-reflex speakers, which require computers to design well. With no bass-reflex speakers, the older generations tended to listen to stereo on bigger, expensive speakers. But their sound was good, with even bass.

Distinguishing between Different Battery-Types

One of the things I recently did, was to pair my Linux-laptop, which I name ‘Klystron’, with an external Bluetooth-Mouse, because even though this advanced, HP laptop has as its hardware, an advanced Synaptics touchpad, that emulates a mouse quite well, we can grow tired of always using the built-in touchpad. I documented here, what I needed to do, to accomplish this pairing.

Well one of the features which the KDE Desktop Manager gives us under Linux, is to indicate the battery-charge-levels, not only of the laptop’s built-in battery, but also those of attached BT-mice, or of anything else which is connected, that has a battery, and the hardware of which is able to report as telemetry, the battery-level.

What was surprising me about this arrangement, was that the indicated battery-level of the mouse seemed to track accurately over the days, that the mouse was connected. This surprised me, because as I was remembering events, I had placed Nickel-Metal-Hydride batteries into the mouse some time ago, and most devices which are physically designed to accept batteries in the AA-format, or in the AAA-battery-format, would be calibrated for Alkaline, Zinc-Manganese-Oxide batteries. When such accessories try to gauge the battery-level, if they have the chip to do so, the voltage-curve of a Ni-MH battery tends to remain lower than that of an Alkaline. A fully-charged Ni-MH only generates about 1.2V per cell, while an Alkaline generates 1.5V. And so when a Ni-MH battery is inserted, this chip will usually indicate a partially-discharged battery, even immediately after it has been charged, and then, when this battery-type finally goes dead, its voltage will collapse almost instantly.

Before the indicated charge-level dropped below ‘70%’, I decided to take the AA-format batteries out, and to put them into a charger I have, that’s designed for Ni-MH batteries, and what I found was, that the LEDs in the charger refused to light up, for the inserted batteries. They did not indicate partially-charged or anything, they just stayed ‘off’.

And so next, my thinking was, ‘Darned! I now have either batteries which have failed on me, or worse – a charger which has failed on me 100%…’