| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
New vs Vintage
We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than yesterday's.
New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to give us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago. Certainly that's true with speakers, today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid '80's, Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday, as are arms, and to a certain extent, turntables. But what about electronics? Of course they're better, they just have to be. Better circuits, better capacitors, better resistors, modern output devices etc. Well, I had that smug conviction badly shaken recently. An audiophile buddy of mine called to say that he had a couple of "new" acquisitions that he wanted my opinion of. When he showed-up, I was somewhat amused. His "new" equipment consisted of a pair of MONO Eico HF-20 integrated amplifiers from the 1950s. My friend had recently bought these from disparate sources. He had run across one of them about a year ago at a garage sale and was so impressed with it that he bought it and then started looking for a mate (for stereo). Well, he recently found the mate to the unit and so equipped he started their "resurrection". The hardest part was replacing the multi-section electrolytic capacitor in the power supply (these are no longer available), which he did with modern tubular capacitors from Rubicon mounted under the chassis (where there was plenty of room). He then cleaned the controls, replaced the tubes, and fired them up. They both sounded fine, It was then that he called me. Now, my main speakers are a pair of Martin-Logan Vista electrostatic hybrids. I was skeptical that a pair of 20-Watt amps could drive the M-Ls , but was willing to try. After making two-pairs of spade-lug-to-banana-jack adapters (the old Eicos had those phenolic strip screw terminal speaker connections on the back which won't accommodate today's spade-lugs (screws are too close to one another), much less a pair of banana plugs), we fired the amps up after connecting them to my Sony XA777-ES SACD/CD player. The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite wrong. I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to about the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock). That was startling enough, but what came next was even more startling. The amps sounded every bit as good as any modern amp. Now, I didn't do any DBTs against my reference amp or any such thing as that, I just listened. The little Eicos had solid, tight bass (often a failing of older tube amps) but these had huge output transformers for their power - easily as big as the Acrosound untra-linear transformers that rival Dynaco used in their MK II monoblock amps (50 Watts/channel), and I attrubute their decent bass to those! Mids were clear and clean with good presence on vocals. Highs were clean, articulate, and didn't sound particularly rolled-off. This really surprised me as the impedance of the M-Ls drops to under 2 Ohms at 20 Khz. The only place I noticed any distress at all was on loud crescendos or when I pushed the amp to high average levels of volume with the control well past the noon position. At that point things started to get a little thick sounding. I get the general idea that with more efficient loudspeakers, these little amps would equate themselves very handsomely at all volume levels with any kind of music. I could happily live with them as my main system if coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays them through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage Thorens TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet the combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him. |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On 3/26/2011 12:24 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than yesterday's. No, we don't all assume that. New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to give us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago. No. Newer is not always better. Certainly that's true with speakers, Hmmmm, not necessarily. today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid '80's, How do you know this? Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday, as are arms, And how do you know this? Now, my main speakers are a pair of Martin-Logan Vista electrostatic hybrids. I was skeptical that a pair of 20-Watt amps could drive the M-Ls... The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite wrong. I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to about the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock). That doesn't mean anything t all. A volume control's taper can be set so that maximum output can be achieved anywhere in its rotation. You're a former audio equipment reviewer and don't understand this stuff? |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 08:40:56 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ): On 3/26/2011 12:24 AM, Audio Empire wrote: We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than yesterday's. No, we don't all assume that. New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to give us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago. No. Newer is not always better. Certainly that's true with speakers, Hmmmm, not necessarily. today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid '80's, How do you know this? Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday, as are arms, And how do you know this? Now, my main speakers are a pair of Martin-Logan Vista electrostatic hybrids. I was skeptical that a pair of 20-Watt amps could drive the M-Ls... The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite wrong. I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to about the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock). That doesn't mean anything t all. What it means, when one reads for CONTENT rather than for contrarian reasons, is that while my expectation was that I'd have to run the amplifier near it's limit to get enough drive to power my speakers, such turned out to not be the case. Other than the control position, there is no way on this amp to get even a rough idea at how hard the amplifier is being driven. It's not like it has a VU meter on it or anything. Sheesh! A volume control's taper can be set so that maximum output can be achieved anywhere in its rotation. You're a former audio equipment reviewer and don't understand this stuff? Since when have you ever seen a volume control on an amplifier that wasn't a standard logarithmic or "audio" taper? While it IS possible, in 1955, it would have been unlikely in the extreme. And you wonder that I don't understand this stuff! Can't you just enjoy the anecdote in the spirit in which it was presented? |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On 3/26/2011 12:24 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
I was skeptical that a pair of 20-Watt amps could drive the M-Ls... The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite wrong. I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to about the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock). I answered: That doesn't mean anything t all. A volume control's taper can be set so that maximum output can be achieved anywhere in its rotation. on 3/26/2011 9:28 PM now Audio Empire sez: What it means, when one reads for CONTENT rather than for contrarian reasons... I do read for content, and I read critically. Using critical thinking doesn't make a reader a contrarian. If you don't want your beliefs subject to evaluation, don't post them in a public discussion group. is that while my expectation was that I'd have to run the amplifier near it's limit to get enough drive to power my speakers, such turned out to not be the case. Other than the control position, there is no way on this amp to get even a rough idea at how hard the amplifier is being driven. Again: the position of the control reveals nothing - absolutely nothing at all - about "how hard the amplifier is being driven." A volume control taper can be set so that maximum output is reached anyplace along its rotation. Can't you just enjoy the anecdote in the spirit in which it was presented? If the "spirit" you intend is that we must accept your opinions as fact and your mistaken conclusions as valid, then the answer is no. Sorry. |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Mar 26, 12:24=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
snip The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite wr= ong. I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to abo= ut the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock). That was startling enough, but what came next was even more startling. =A0The amps sounded every bit as good as any modern amp. Now, I didn't do any DBTs against my reference amp or any such thing as that, I just listened. The little Eicos had solid, tight bass (often a failing of older tube amps) b= ut these had huge output transformers for their power - easily as big as the Acrosound untra-linear transformers that rival Dynaco used in their MK II monoblock amps (50 Watts/channel), and I attrubute their decent bass to those! =A0Mids were clear and clean with good presence on vocals. Highs w= ere clean, articulate, and didn't sound particularly rolled-off. =A0This real= ly surprised me as the impedance of the M-Ls drops to under 2 Ohms at 20 Khz= .. Amplifier technology was reasonably advanced in the 1950's. The requirements for linear amplification were well understood and with some care it was possible to obtain good results. Careful measurements will reveal a number of deficiencies compared to modern amplifiers but they may not be easily heard. The low impedance of your speakers at 20 KHz is unlikely to be an issue since there is very little energy at that frequency and lower frequencies mask this part of the spectrum. Many people cannot hear that high anyway. The only place I noticed any distress at all was on loud crescendos or wh= en I pushed the amp to high average levels of volume with the control well pas= t the noon position. Modern technology makes it easy to design low-cost high-power high- quality amplifiers to avoid this limitation. |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 08:54:50 -0700, jwvm wrote
(in article ): On Mar 26, 12:24=A0am, Audio Empire wrote: snip The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite wr= ong. I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to abo= ut the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock). That was startling enough, but what came next was even more startling. =A0The amps sounded every bit as good as any modern amp. Now, I didn't do any DBTs against my reference amp or any such thing as that, I just listened. The little Eicos had solid, tight bass (often a failing of older tube amps) b= ut these had huge output transformers for their power - easily as big as the Acrosound untra-linear transformers that rival Dynaco used in their MK II monoblock amps (50 Watts/channel), and I attrubute their decent bass to those! =A0Mids were clear and clean with good presence on vocals. Highs w= ere clean, articulate, and didn't sound particularly rolled-off. =A0This real= ly surprised me as the impedance of the M-Ls drops to under 2 Ohms at 20 Khz= . Amplifier technology was reasonably advanced in the 1950's. The requirements for linear amplification were well understood and with some care it was possible to obtain good results. Careful measurements will reveal a number of deficiencies compared to modern amplifiers but they may not be easily heard. The low impedance of your speakers at 20 KHz is unlikely to be an issue since there is very little energy at that frequency and lower frequencies mask this part of the spectrum. Many people cannot hear that high anyway. The only place I noticed any distress at all was on loud crescendos or wh= en I pushed the amp to high average levels of volume with the control well pas= t the noon position. Modern technology makes it easy to design low-cost high-power high- quality amplifiers to avoid this limitation. Of course they do. I was just somewhat surprised at how GOOD these old amps actually were and thought I would share it with the group. Except for a new set of tubes and a couple of new filter caps in the power supply, and cleaning the controls, these amps' signal paths were untouched. |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Mar 26, 10:10=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
I was just somewhat surprised at how GOOD these old amps actually were and thought I would share it with the group. Except for a n= ew set of tubes and a couple of new filter caps in the power supply, and cleaning the controls, these amps' signal paths were untouched. I don't know why you would be surprised since this has been know for decades. Tube amps that were essentially transparent were designed back in the 1940's I believe, and some were in production in the 1950's if my memory serves me. Maybe it was the sixties but somewhere around then the Leak .01 amplifier was sold in England. It was +- 1 db from 20-20000 hz and had less than 0.1 percent distortion. And of course by the end of the 1960's solid state amplifiers that were essentially sonically transparent were commonly available. These amplifiers did not put out much power it is true, and had trouble driving the early and inefficient "acoustic suspension" system that came to popularity around then. I heard in the 1950's a system that, though monophonic, would very likely meet the standard of "high fidelity" even today. Of course records of the day were outclassed by the CD systems that came later, but I remember listening to the Shostakovatch fifth on my friend's Dad's monophonic system while I was still in high school and being quite amazed at the sound quality even back then from his kit built dynaco amps and preamps driving a Wharfdale 9 cubic foot corner brick enclosure with a 15" woofer, 8" midrange and 3" tweeter. That system was efficient for sure and the 30 or 40 watts from the Dynaco kit could drive it to extraordinary levels and I had my first taste of real deep and un-boomy bass, not repeated for many years except at live concerts.. Later that year I heard our local symphony with an aunt supplying the tickets and was surprised at how much like the orchestra in front of me sounded to that old home built Wharfedale speaker. We can do just as well today for what amounts to a lot less money when you discount for inflation. But HI-Fi was invented in the 1940's and could be amazingly good even with the old gigantic speakers that you pretty well had to have to make things work. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 07:37:49 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ): On Mar 26, 10:10=A0am, Audio Empire wrote: I was just somewhat surprised at how GOOD these old amps actually were and thought I would share it with the group. Except for a n= ew set of tubes and a couple of new filter caps in the power supply, and cleaning the controls, these amps' signal paths were untouched. I don't know why you would be surprised since this has been know for decades. Tube amps that were essentially transparent were designed back in the 1940's I believe, and some were in production in the 1950's if my memory serves me. Maybe it was the sixties but somewhere around then the Leak .01 amplifier was sold in England. It was +- 1 db from 20-20000 hz and had less than 0.1 percent distortion. Yes, The Leak did have the published specs you quote. AT ONE WATT! That was a common ploy in the 1950's and 1960's to publish spectacular specs, then follow them with an asterisk. When you find the asterisk's foot-note (usually in tiny print) it would say "at one Watt". Actually, until quite recently, tube amps were all over the place. Some sounded good by modern standards, some, not so good. These cheap little Eicos to which I referred sounded great, even through speakers that were, clearly, not a good match for them for a number of reasons (but mostly due to efficiency). That is what surprised me the most. And of course by the end of the 1960's solid state amplifiers that were essentially sonically transparent were commonly available. You mean Like the Dynaco ST-120 running hard into class 'B' with it's VISIBLE crossover notch? Or the Acoustech amplifier that went into supersonic oscillation if you looked at it wrong, and created lots of odd-order distortion when not blowing its output transistors? Or the early McIntosh SS deigns that used coupling transformers between stages and sounded dreadful? Or the early Crown SS power amps that sounded terrible (but in fairness, were essentially bulletproof. Something you couldn't say of the early Dynacos or the Harman-Kardon Citation 12, or any other 40-60 Watt/channel amps using 2N3055 output devices...). These amplifiers did not put out much power it is true, and had trouble driving the early and inefficient "acoustic suspension" system that came to popularity around then. I heard in the 1950's a system that, though monophonic, would very likely meet the standard of "high fidelity" even today. Of course records of the day were outclassed by the CD systems that came later, but I remember listening to the Shostakovatch fifth on my friend's Dad's monophonic system while I was still in high school and being quite amazed at the sound quality even back then from his kit built dynaco amps and preamps driving a Wharfdale 9 cubic foot corner brick enclosure with a 15" woofer, 8" midrange and 3" tweeter. That system was efficient for sure and the 30 or 40 watts from the Dynaco kit could drive it to extraordinary levels and I had my first taste of real deep and un-boomy bass, not repeated for many years except at live concerts.. Later that year I heard our local symphony with an aunt supplying the tickets and was surprised at how much like the orchestra in front of me sounded to that old home built Wharfedale speaker. We can do just as well today for what amounts to a lot less money when you discount for inflation. But HI-Fi was invented in the 1940's and could be amazingly good even with the old gigantic speakers that you pretty well had to have to make things work. I grew up in that era, and I can tell you that the nostalgia is almost as colored as much of the equipment from those days. While tube amps like Mcintosh and Marantz Model 9s and to a lesser extent, Dynacos, were pretty good, there were lots more that were simply mediocre (mostly due to cheap output transformers). They measured OK at 1 Watt, as I said above, but as the power went up, they sounded worse and worse. I have a friend who, until a couple of years ago, had a stereo system consisting of a pair of Heathkit WA-P2 preamps and a pair of Heathkit Willaimson power amps playing through a pair of 2-way speakers consisting of Electrovoice 15" woofers, and Electrovoice horn tweeters and crossovers mounted in huge "Karlson Kabinet" enclosures. In spite of the huge woofer, and the imposingly big cabinets, the system had no real bass below about 50 Hz and the horn tweeters were beamy and overly bright and edgy. His electronics sounded OK at low levels, but anything above that and they became pretty colored. I'll say this for the system, it would play LOUD. Those Williamson amps were only 25 Watts/channel but they would play those very efficient speakers very loudly. Too bad you didn't want to listen listen to them "loud" OTOH, I know an old guy (in his mid eighties) who has a pair of Altec Lansing speaker systems that have bass to die for. Each 50-inch by 65-inch by 30-inch enclosure houses FOUR 15-inch Altec woofers (that's EIGHT altogether)! I've never heard a home stereo system pressurize a room like that system does. The bass not only goes subterranean, but it also can be felt like none I've ever heard outside of a concert hall. Unfortunately, the excellence of those huge speaker systems stops at 500 Hz where the simply HORRID Altec "treble horns" take over. I've known a number of people who had systems incorporating these terrible sounding devices. I've never heard them sound good on music (I guess they were OK in a movie theatre for speech intelligibility, but god help them for music). |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 07:37:49 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote (in article ): On Mar 26, 10:10=A0am, Audio Empire wrote: I was just somewhat surprised at how GOOD these old amps actually were and thought I would share it with the group. Except for a n= ew set of tubes and a couple of new filter caps in the power supply, and cleaning the controls, these amps' signal paths were untouched. snip Actually, until quite recently, tube amps were all over the place. Some sounded good by modern standards, some, not so good. These cheap little Eicos to which I referred sounded great, even through speakers that were, clearly, not a good match for them for a number of reasons (but mostly due to efficiency). That is what surprised me the most. And of course by the end of the 1960's solid state amplifiers that were essentially sonically transparent were commonly available. You mean Like the Dynaco ST-120 running hard into class 'B' with it's VISIBLE crossover notch? Or the Acoustech amplifier that went into supersonic oscillation if you looked at it wrong, and created lots of odd-order distortion when not blowing its output transistors? Or the early McIntosh SS deigns that used coupling transformers between stages and sounded dreadful? Or the early Crown SS power amps that sounded terrible (but in fairness, were essentially bulletproof. Something you couldn't say of the early Dynacos or the Harman-Kardon Citation 12, or any other 40-60 Watt/channel amps using 2N3055 output devices...). Amen, brother, amen. Had experience (either by owning or helping friends) with all of those. Any wonder I ended up with an ARC D90B? These amplifiers did not put out much power it is true, and had trouble driving the early and inefficient "acoustic suspension" system that came to popularity around then. I heard in the 1950's a system that, though monophonic, would very likely meet the standard of "high fidelity" even today. Of course records of the day were outclassed by the CD systems that came later, but I remember listening to the Shostakovatch fifth on my friend's Dad's monophonic system while I was still in high school and being quite amazed at the sound quality even back then from his kit built dynaco amps and preamps driving a Wharfdale 9 cubic foot corner brick enclosure with a 15" woofer, 8" midrange and 3" tweeter. That system was efficient for sure and the 30 or 40 watts from the Dynaco kit could drive it to extraordinary levels and I had my first taste of real deep and un-boomy bass, not repeated for many years except at live concerts.. Later that year I heard our local symphony with an aunt supplying the tickets and was surprised at how much like the orchestra in front of me sounded to that old home built Wharfedale speaker. We can do just as well today for what amounts to a lot less money when you discount for inflation. But HI-Fi was invented in the 1940's and could be amazingly good even with the old gigantic speakers that you pretty well had to have to make things work. snip OTOH, I know an old guy (in his mid eighties) who has a pair of Altec Lansing speaker systems that have bass to die for. Each 50-inch by 65-inch by 30-inch enclosure houses FOUR 15-inch Altec woofers (that's EIGHT altogether)! I've never heard a home stereo system pressurize a room like that system does. The bass not only goes subterranean, but it also can be felt like none I've ever heard outside of a concert hall. Unfortunately, the excellence of those huge speaker systems stops at 500 Hz where the simply HORRID Altec "treble horns" take over. I've known a number of people who had systems incorporating these terrible sounding devices. I've never heard them sound good on music (I guess they were OK in a movie theatre for speech intelligibility, but god help them for music). I was lucky enough to have a dad who was in the business. So we had a big mono JBL corner horn with two 15" woofers and a propriatary mid-range/treble horn that sufficed up to about 15k. It did a pretty good job of sounding "real" driven by a 25watt Newcomb power amp, especially on the audiophile pressings of the day (I still recall the sound of the old Audiophile Label 12" red vinyl LP's featuring Red Nichols and the Five Pennies...."in the room" sound. And then there were Emory Cook's "Sounds of Our Times" recordings. One in particular, "Speed the Parting Guest" was a favorite in our house. And of course the ubiquitous "Railroad Sounds". :/) ). |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
You mean Like the Dynaco ST-120 running hard into class 'B' with it's VISIBLE crossover notch? I have an all-orgional Dyna ST 120 and have tried all sort of schemes to measure or hear any such thing. AFAIK, this is an audiophile myth. It may have happened in equipment that needed maintenance, but it was not a standard feature of properly-operating equipment. Or the early McIntosh SS deigns that used coupling transformers A comprehensive archive of McIntosh schematics and service manuals can be found he http://www.tubebooks.org/mcintosh_data.htm I find no McIntosh SS amps with coupling transformers. Perhaps you can find some? Driver transformers were widely used in the early days of the evolution of SS power amps, with surprisingly good results. Manufacturers that used them included Acoustic Research, Heath, Altec Lansing, etc., etc. These parts were called on to handle relatively small amounts of power and therefore were easily overdesigned and overbuilt. They overcame the expense and relatively rarely of complementary driver and output devices. They were eliminated as a cost-saving move when appropriate (complementary - similar transistors that were available as both NPN and PNP parts) became widely available at low cost. McIntosh used autoformers as output devices in order to improve the impedance matching between the limited output devices of the day and real-world speakers. But these are neither for interastage coupling nor are they transformers as they maintain a DC path between their inputs and outputs. beOr the early Crown SS power amps that sounded terrible (but in fairness, were essentially bulletproof. The Crown SS power amps had conservatively rated SOA protection circuits that contributed to their longetivity. As long as you stayed clear of highly reactive speaker loads, they sounded fine. Something you couldn't say of the early Dynacos or the Harman-Kardon Citation 12, or any other 40-60 Watt/channel amps using 2N3055 output devices...). The Citation 12 did not use 2N3055 output devices. Its output devices were RCA 40636's which were similar, but then so were very many other silicon power transistors of the day. The Dyna 120 was originally shipped with 2N3055 output devices but they were quickly upgraded by Dyna to 2N3772 types which were an uprated device. My Dyna 120 appears to have been factory built and shows no signs of parts replacements or other maintenance. It came with 2N3772 output devices. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than yesterday's. New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to give us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago. Certainly that's true with speakers, today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid '80's, Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday, as are arms, and to a certain extent, turntables. But what about electronics? Of course they're better, they just have to be. Better circuits, better capacitors, better resistors, modern output devices etc. Well, I had that smug conviction badly shaken recently. An audiophile buddy of mine called to say that he had a couple of "new" acquisitions that he wanted my opinion of. When he showed-up, I was somewhat amused. His "new" equipment consisted of a pair of MONO Eico HF-20 integrated amplifiers from the 1950s. snip I could happily live with them as my main system if coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays them through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage Thorens TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet the combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him. Ah, memories! This was the first kit amp I built, and the one that got me through my last year of high school and four years of college. In those days it drove at first an EV SP-15 in a bass reflex cabinet and later a Jensen 15" Tri-Ax in a corner horn (both cabinets hand built). Coupled with an Eico FM Tuner and a Garrad changer with an (exotic) Norelco mono cartridge, it was a pretty decent beginning to my audio involvement. |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:56:28 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than yesterday's. New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to give us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago. Certainly that's true with speakers, today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid '80's, Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday, as are arms, and to a certain extent, turntables. But what about electronics? Of course they're better, they just have to be. Better circuits, better capacitors, better resistors, modern output devices etc. Well, I had that smug conviction badly shaken recently. An audiophile buddy of mine called to say that he had a couple of "new" acquisitions that he wanted my opinion of. When he showed-up, I was somewhat amused. His "new" equipment consisted of a pair of MONO Eico HF-20 integrated amplifiers from the 1950s. snip I could happily live with them as my main system if coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays them through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage Thorens TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet the combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him. Ah, memories! This was the first kit amp I built, and the one that got me through my last year of high school and four years of college. In those days it drove at first an EV SP-15 in a bass reflex cabinet and later a Jensen 15" Tri-Ax in a corner horn (both cabinets hand built). Coupled with an Eico FM Tuner and a Garrad changer with an (exotic) Norelco mono cartridge, it was a pretty decent beginning to my audio involvement. Yes, it would have been. What model Garrard turntable did you have? Mine was a "Type A" with a Pickering Cartridge. I also had an Eico FM tuner (HFT-90) and it was an excellent performer as I recall. It didn't have AFC, and yet it didn't drift appreciably. I didn't need really high sensitivity because I lived in the "prime reception" area in the Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. And because FM stations were much further apart geographically then than they are now (and there weren't so many of them), selectivity wasn't of great importance either. But I do recall that the thing had very wide bandwidth (designed for SCA) so that when stereo FM came along in '62, the addition of a Knight-Kit stereo demodulator kit gave excellent stereo performance. That tuner and Multiplex "adaptor" lasted me through high-school, college and I probably used it up until long after I had moved to CA and started my career ( I replaced it with a Pioneer TX-9500 IIRC) . I especially remember this tiny little vacuum tube that rode on the dial string carriage and moved across the dial when the tuning knob was turned. It's green glow was the station 'pointer' and it contracted from a line to an exclamation point (!) when you were tuned right on the station. I always thought that was clever. |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:56:28 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): snip I could happily live with them as my main system if coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays them through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage Thorens TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet the combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him. Ah, memories! This was the first kit amp I built, and the one that got me through my last year of high school and four years of college. In those days it drove at first an EV SP-15 in a bass reflex cabinet and later a Jensen 15" Tri-Ax in a corner horn (both cabinets hand built). Coupled with an Eico FM Tuner and a Garrad changer with an (exotic) Norelco mono cartridge, it was a pretty decent beginning to my audio involvement. Yes, it would have been. What model Garrard turntable did you have? Mine was a "Type A" with a Pickering Cartridge. I also had an Eico FM tuner (HFT-90) and it was an excellent performer as I recall. It didn't have AFC, and yet it didn't drift appreciably. I didn't need really high sensitivity because I lived in the "prime reception" area in the Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. And because FM stations were much further apart geographically then than they are now (and there weren't so many of them), selectivity wasn't of great importance either. But I do recall that the thing had very wide bandwidth (designed for SCA) so that when stereo FM came along in '62, the addition of a Knight-Kit stereo demodulator kit gave excellent stereo performance. That tuner and Multiplex "adaptor" lasted me through high-school, college and I probably used it up until long after I had moved to CA and started my career ( I replaced it with a Pioneer TX-9500 IIRC) . I especially remember this tiny little vacuum tube that rode on the dial string carriage and moved across the dial when the tuning knob was turned. It's green glow was the station 'pointer' and it contracted from a line to an exclamation point (!) when you were tuned right on the station. I always thought that was clever. That's the tuner, for sure. I sold mine and bought a Sherwood when stereo came out and I had moved to Chicago for graduate school. In the area outside of Cleveland where I went to school, the little Eico did fine. And the Model 20 amplifier was a dandy. Later on I built a 35wpc Eico as my first stereo amp, just after graduating from school. My first wife teases me that I built that kit on our honeymoon (not quite, but perhaps within a few weeks afterward. :-( ). As for the Garrard....the A wasn't out yet....this was the much less expensive AT-6. But it had a much better arm than the previous Garrards. I still have it sitting somewhere on a shelf in the basement. Doubt it still runs. However, the Norelco cartridge was a marvel, and much better than the mono GE reluctance cartridges that were the mainstream at the time. |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 07:43:06 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:56:28 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): snip I could happily live with them as my main system if coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays them through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage Thorens TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet the combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him. Ah, memories! This was the first kit amp I built, and the one that got me through my last year of high school and four years of college. In those days it drove at first an EV SP-15 in a bass reflex cabinet and later a Jensen 15" Tri-Ax in a corner horn (both cabinets hand built). Coupled with an Eico FM Tuner and a Garrad changer with an (exotic) Norelco mono cartridge, it was a pretty decent beginning to my audio involvement. Yes, it would have been. What model Garrard turntable did you have? Mine was a "Type A" with a Pickering Cartridge. I also had an Eico FM tuner (HFT-90) and it was an excellent performer as I recall. It didn't have AFC, and yet it didn't drift appreciably. I didn't need really high sensitivity because I lived in the "prime reception" area in the Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. And because FM stations were much further apart geographically then than they are now (and there weren't so many of them), selectivity wasn't of great importance either. But I do recall that the thing had very wide bandwidth (designed for SCA) so that when stereo FM came along in '62, the addition of a Knight-Kit stereo demodulator kit gave excellent stereo performance. That tuner and Multiplex "adaptor" lasted me through high-school, college and I probably used it up until long after I had moved to CA and started my career ( I replaced it with a Pioneer TX-9500 IIRC) . I especially remember this tiny little vacuum tube that rode on the dial string carriage and moved across the dial when the tuning knob was turned. It's green glow was the station 'pointer' and it contracted from a line to an exclamation point (!) when you were tuned right on the station. I always thought that was clever. That's the tuner, for sure. I sold mine and bought a Sherwood when stereo came out and I had moved to Chicago for graduate school. In the area outside of Cleveland where I went to school, the little Eico did fine. And the Model 20 amplifier was a dandy. Later on I built a 35wpc Eico as my first stereo amp, just after graduating from school. My first wife teases me that I built that kit on our honeymoon (not quite, but perhaps within a few weeks afterward. :-( ). Was the Eico stereo amp as good as the little HF-20? I think that the latter's main strong point was the fact that it had such a HUGE output transformer for it's power output. As for the Garrard....the A wasn't out yet....this was the much less expensive AT-6. But it had a much better arm than the previous Garrards. I still have it sitting somewhere on a shelf in the basement. Doubt it still runs. However, the Norelco cartridge was a marvel, and much better than the mono GE reluctance cartridges that were the mainstream at the time. I remember the AT-6. It had a "dynamically balanced" tone-arm with a square weight on the back. It was certainly better than the previous generation of Garrads for sure which had molded phenolic tone arms and used a spring to pull "up" on the arm to provide stylus pressure. They did have plug-in shells though, as I recall. Most seemed to come equipped with the almost ubiquitous General Electric VR-II magnetic cartridge, the one with the red knob that stuck through the top of the tone-arm head shell. You changed from the 78 RPM stylus to the LP stylus by pushing down on that knob and rotating it 180 degrees! I think they even made a stereo version of that puppy. What I always wanted as a kid was either a Garrard 301 or a Thorens TD-124. Then later when the Empire 298 "Troubadour" came out, I switched allegiance to those. I still want one (I had a gorgeous 598 once and for some reason, let it foolishly slip through my fingers). |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 07:43:06 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:56:28 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): snip I could happily live with them as my main system if coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays them through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage Thorens TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet the combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him. Ah, memories! This was the first kit amp I built, and the one that got me through my last year of high school and four years of college. In those days it drove at first an EV SP-15 in a bass reflex cabinet and later a Jensen 15" Tri-Ax in a corner horn (both cabinets hand built). Coupled with an Eico FM Tuner and a Garrad changer with an (exotic) Norelco mono cartridge, it was a pretty decent beginning to my audio involvement. Yes, it would have been. What model Garrard turntable did you have? Mine was a "Type A" with a Pickering Cartridge. I also had an Eico FM tuner (HFT-90) and it was an excellent performer as I recall. It didn't have AFC, and yet it didn't drift appreciably. I didn't need really high sensitivity because I lived in the "prime reception" area in the Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. And because FM stations were much further apart geographically then than they are now (and there weren't so many of them), selectivity wasn't of great importance either. But I do recall that the thing had very wide bandwidth (designed for SCA) so that when stereo FM came along in '62, the addition of a Knight-Kit stereo demodulator kit gave excellent stereo performance. That tuner and Multiplex "adaptor" lasted me through high-school, college and I probably used it up until long after I had moved to CA and started my career ( I replaced it with a Pioneer TX-9500 IIRC) . I especially remember this tiny little vacuum tube that rode on the dial string carriage and moved across the dial when the tuning knob was turned. It's green glow was the station 'pointer' and it contracted from a line to an exclamation point (!) when you were tuned right on the station. I always thought that was clever. That's the tuner, for sure. I sold mine and bought a Sherwood when stereo came out and I had moved to Chicago for graduate school. In the area outside of Cleveland where I went to school, the little Eico did fine. And the Model 20 amplifier was a dandy. Later on I built a 35wpc Eico as my first stereo amp, just after graduating from school. My first wife teases me that I built that kit on our honeymoon (not quite, but perhaps within a few weeks afterward. :-( ). Was the Eico stereo amp as good as the little HF-20? I think that the latter's main strong point was the fact that it had such a HUGE output transformer for it's power output. No, the transformers were not as good....and the compromises needed for one-chassis stereo were already in evidence. But the transformers were bigger than the Scotts and Fishers of the day, and it was a pretty good unit nonetheless. These old guys are still sought after and being refurbed by hobbyists today. As for the Garrard....the A wasn't out yet....this was the much less expensive AT-6. But it had a much better arm than the previous Garrards. I still have it sitting somewhere on a shelf in the basement. Doubt it still runs. However, the Norelco cartridge was a marvel, and much better than the mono GE reluctance cartridges that were the mainstream at the time. I remember the AT-6. It had a "dynamically balanced" tone-arm with a square weight on the back. It was certainly better than the previous generation of Garrads for sure which had molded phenolic tone arms and used a spring to pull "up" on the arm to provide stylus pressure. They did have plug-in shells though, as I recall. Most seemed to come equipped with the almost ubiquitous General Electric VR-II magnetic cartridge, the one with the red knob that stuck through the top of the tone-arm head shell. You changed from the 78 RPM stylus to the LP stylus by pushing down on that knob and rotating it 180 degrees! I think they even made a stereo version of that puppy. What I always wanted as a kid was either a Garrard 301 or a Thorens TD-124. Then later when the Empire 298 "Troubadour" came out, I switched allegiance to those. I still want one (I had a gorgeous 598 once and for some reason, let it foolishly slip through my fingers). Well, my AT-6 yielded to a Dual 1019, then to a Rek-O-Kut with a Pritchard wooden arm, then to a Dual 701 auto-manual (which I use still today), and eventually to a Linn Sondek with Syrinx PU-2 arm, teamed with an Accuphase AC-2 cartridge. I still use the Dual 701 and the Accuphase driving a modified Marcof headamp in the system today.....the Linn was sacrificed in the name of financing the five channel analog surround system I listen to today. |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:21:33PM -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, Audio Empire wrote: We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than yesterday's. And how do you know this? Have you talked to "all" audiophiles and electronic engineers in the world? What does "We all" even mean in this context? Everyone in the world? Just the audiophiles? Some particular subgroup of human beings. Have you done a random sample survey? I know you didn't ask me and I don't assume that at all. Someone else has posted that he, too, doesn't assume that. And I know personally several other's who don't assume that either. On the other hand I know nothing at all about what "all" audiophiles know or assume and make no claims about it. Maybe you and your friends assume this, but you and your friends are not "we all". I am not in any way accusing you of lying, or even suggesting that you are. But maybe you would take a little more care when stating things that you cannot possibly know for certain in a context whose grammar suggests that you do. Exaggeration does not improve one's credibility. |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 18:27:25 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ): On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:21:33PM -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, Audio Empire wrote: We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than yesterday's. And how do you know this? Have you talked to "all" audiophiles and electronic engineers in the world? What does "We all" even mean in this context? Everyone in the world? Just the audiophiles? Some particular subgroup of human beings. Have you done a random sample survey? I know you didn't ask me and I don't assume that at all. Someone else has posted that he, too, doesn't assume that. And I know personally several other's who don't assume that either. On the other hand I know nothing at all about what "all" audiophiles know or assume and make no claims about it. Maybe you and your friends assume this, but you and your friends are not "we all". I am not in any way accusing you of lying, or even suggesting that you are. But maybe you would take a little more care when stating things that you cannot possibly know for certain in a context whose grammar suggests that you do. Exaggeration does not improve one's credibility. Seedhouse. Get a life. the hyperbole is a journalistic "device" and the universal WE doesn't mean ANYTHING except as an opening line. It's not meant to be taken literally, and, thankfully, most people understand this and don't. So, If you have nothing more constructive to add than this, you can COUNT on my not responding to you any more. Life's just too short, my friend. |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Mar 27, 7:43=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than yesterday's. On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:21:33PM -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote: And how do you know this? =A0Have you talked to "all" audiophiles and electronic engineers in the world? =A0What does "We all" even mean in this context? =A0Everyone in the world? =A0Just the audiophiles? =A0Som= e particular subgroup of human beings. On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, Audio Empire wrote: Seedhouse. Get a life. the hyperbole is a journalistic "device" and the universal WE doesn't mean ANYTHING except as an opening line. =A0It's not= meant to be taken literally, and, thankfully, most people understand this and don't. =A0So, If you have nothing more constructive to add than this, you= can COUNT on my not responding to you any more. Life's just too short, my fri= end. So are you a journalist then? But this forum is not a newspaper or magazine, but a *discussion* forum. If you don't want to be criticized for exaggeration just stop exaggerating. It isn't really all that hard to do. I am no journalist and when I read statements that exaggerate obviously in newspapers and magazines I draw conclusions about how interesting or worthwhile they are likely to be. Now there are several audio journals that (it seems to me) specialize in this kind of thing, so perhaps you should submit your articles to them and see if they'll publish them.and pay you. And good luck to you. But if you want to be a "journalist" this is not the place for it so far as I can see. It is a discussion group and one expects, or should be expecting at any rate, criticism, which is what you have received here from more than one source on exactly the same point. I am pretty happy with the life I already have, but it certainly not perfect and could possibly be improved if someone were to send me, say, a couple of million dollars. I have heard wealth does not improve happiness but am willing to serve as an experimental subject. But when I get told to "get a life" simply because I make a mild criticism it always seems to me that it is the person who is making this insulting response (un-moderated for some reason) is likely the one who needs to consider following his own advice. If you post un sourced claims and exaggerations in a usenet discussion forum, expect criticism. If you can't stand that you might try posting elsewhere. Better still would be to keep posting here but to be a little more careful of making unsubstantiated claims. |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Mar 27, 12:08=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
So are you a journalist then? =A0But this forum is not a newspaper or magazine, but a *discussion* forum. =A0If you don't want to be criticized for exaggeration just stop exaggerating. =A0 I would like to add to that, don't use colorful language when describing your experiences and at all costs, avoid having fun. The last thing we want is for audiophiles to have fun with audio. If you show any signs of having fun I will personally ridicule you into joylessness. After all, it is a discussion forum..... The OP asks the question "But what about electronics?" I think there has been a tendency towards fashionable trends that come and go more than a tendency for real breakthrough since the mid eighties. |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:24:31 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Mar 27, 12:08=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote: So are you a journalist then? =A0But this forum is not a newspaper or magazine, but a *discussion* forum. =A0If you don't want to be criticized for exaggeration just stop exaggerating. =A0 I would like to add to that, don't use colorful language when describing your experiences and at all costs, avoid having fun. The last thing we want is for audiophiles to have fun with audio. If you show any signs of having fun I will personally ridicule you into joylessness. After all, it is a discussion forum..... The OP asks the question "But what about electronics?" I think there has been a tendency towards fashionable trends that come and go more than a tendency for real breakthrough since the mid eighties. I stand duly chastised. I wrote an anecdote and posted it, hoping that readers would find it fun and entertaining. I humbly apologize. I will, in the future, endeavor to be as dull as mud and as boring as a temperance lecturer in a beer hall - NOT! Sorry fellas, if you don't like what or how I write, I've a friendly suggestion for you. Don't read my stuff. Problem solved. |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On 3/27/2011 10:43 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
the hyperbole is a journalistic "device" and the universal WE doesn't mean ANYTHING except as an opening line. It's not meant to be taken literally... Please explain how, as a journalist, you use this "device" of hyperbole. Please explain how a reader is to distinguish your hyperbole from other statements you expect us to accept as factual. Did you employ this hyperbolic "device" when you worked as an equipment reviewer? |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Mar 28, 6:50=A0am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
Did you employ this hyperbolic "device" when you worked as an equipment reviewer? Don't they all? :-) bob |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:22:35 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Mar 28, 6:50=A0am, "C. Leeds" wrote: Did you employ this hyperbolic "device" when you worked as an equipment reviewer? Don't they all? :-) bob It's pretty much de-riguer. Any reviewer worth his salt, knows that what he is writing is ENTERTAINMENT, first and foremost. If his writing style doesn't engage the reader, then the reader won't read his stuff. Of course, it's nice if one's reviews also convey useful information and even better if it causes the reader to add the component that the writer just reviewed to his short-list of components to consider. But the overwhelming requirement remains entertainment. |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Mar 28, 3:50=A0am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
On 3/27/2011 10:43 AM, Audio Empire wrote: the hyperbole is a journalistic "device" and the universal WE doesn't mean ANYTHING except as an opening line. =A0It's n= ot meant to be taken literally... Please explain how, as a journalist, you use this "device" of hyperbole. Please explain how a reader is to distinguish your hyperbole from other statements you expect us to accept as factual. Did you employ this hyperbolic "device" when you worked as an equipment reviewer? I hope he did. Hyperbole is a pretty common device in critical review of any and all things subjective. It's on the readers to understand this commonly used device. If one wishes to be boring as a reviewer hyperbole should be avoided at all costs. |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 03:50:49 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ): On 3/27/2011 10:43 AM, Audio Empire wrote: the hyperbole is a journalistic "device" and the universal WE doesn't mean ANYTHING except as an opening line. It's not meant to be taken literally... Please explain how, as a journalist, you use this "device" of hyperbole. Please explain how a reader is to distinguish your hyperbole from other statements you expect us to accept as factual. Did you employ this hyperbolic "device" when you worked as an equipment reviewer? I'm surprised that I have to explain these things to someone who''s ostensibly, an adult. Look, here's an analogy. Someone is going to write a criticism of something Congress has done with which he doesn't agree. He might open his criticism with: "We all know that Congress has the best interests of the American people at heart, but in its last session it passed a law......" First of all, we all DON'T know that Congress has the best interests of the American people at heart. The person writing this knows that's the case, the persons reading it knows that's the case . We certainly hope it's true, and many people even assume it's true, but others suspect it's not and some are even convinced that it's not true. But it establishes a "community" of the writer and the reader for the duration of the written piece. It becomes a "peg", if you will, for the writer to hang his arguments from. In my case, I used a similar device based on the fact that MOST audiophiles DO think that new stuff is better than old. Hell, much of the business model of home audio is based upon the audiophile striving to "upgrade" his components to the latest and the greatest. The reality is that while many audiophiles do not think that newer stuff is necessarily better than older stuff, the vast majority probably do. But, by reminding the reader of this widely held wisdom, I create a literary "peg" to hang my anecdote on. That's all I'm going to say on the subject, My suggestion, which I will now reiterate, is that if you don't like what or how I write, don't read what I write. Believe me, it won't insult me in the least if you skip my meager contributions to this august body. 8^) Oh, yes, and one more thing. I STILL work as an equipment reviewer and I've been with the same publication for more than 16 years. |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On 3/28/2011 5:59 PM, Audio Empire wrote (about his use of hyperbole as
an audio reviewer): In my case, I used a similar device based on the fact that MOST audiophiles DO think that new stuff is better than old. How do you know this? Is it an assumption, is it hyperbole, or do you actually have information to support your claim? Hell, much of the business model of home audio is based upon the audiophile striving to "upgrade" his components to the latest and the greatest. Again, how do you know this? I'm not certain that the image of the always-upgrading audiophile isn't just a stereotype. Oh, yes, and one more thing. I STILL work as an equipment reviewer and I've been with the same publication for more than 16 years. Which publication? Since you claim to be a journalist, you shouldn't mind telling us. |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Mar 28, 5:59=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
In my case, I used a similar device based on the fact that MOST audiophil= es DO think that new stuff is better than old. Hell, much of the business mo= del of home audio is based upon the audiophile striving to "upgrade" his components to the latest and the greatest. The reality is that while many audiophiles do not think that newer stuff is necessarily better than olde= r stuff, the vast majority probably do. But, by reminding the reader of thi= s widely held wisdom, I create a literary "peg" to hang my anecdote on. Oh, yes, and one more thing. I STILL work as an equipment reviewer and I'= ve been with the same publication for more than 16 years. hmmmm..... Business Model - I get that. And in order for the business to survive, it _must_ support and adopt the myth (for lack of a better word) that new equipment is necessarily better than old equipment. And this is an absolute necessity when the equipment in question does not age in a linear, predictable manner as to many other consumer goods - vehicles, appliances, clothing and so forth - nor does it go in or out of fashion as other consumer goods, nor does it become more or less energy-efficient as do appliances, vehicles, or safer as do appliances and vehicles as they advance. If {insert favorite maker name here} states that the amplifier made and sold today is absolutely the best there is upon which no improvement may be made - where does that leave them tomorrow? Audio 'improvements' remind me of that proverbial Vanishing Bird (not to be mistaken for the Ooh-AHhhh bird) that flies in ever decreasing circles until it finally vanishes up its own fundament (the Ooh-AHhhh bird is a one-pound bird that lays a two-pound egg). I know more than a few audiophiles - and more than a few purveyors of audio equipment. I have found from long association with both that the one more-or-less excludes the other during the sales process. I know one (1) reviewer-of-equipment at a professional level - and bluntly, I would not trust that individual to call it daytime at noon. A decent individual - but within that profession no better than any given congress person. Ah, well. I really do not believe for one hummingbird heartbeat that "new" is necessarily better than old - and in many cases I would posit that it is far worse. Nor do I think that outside of transducers and other analog media (tape, vinyl, FM *analog* tuners) that there is much room for improvement. See "vanishing bird" above. And I also would suggest that at least within my limited experience most audiophiles - really - with even half-a-brain pretty much know what they like and pretty much leave it at that eschewing the magic Kool- Aid entirely. Starting with cables and other interconnects.... It was Mr. Menken who wrote that famous phrase: Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. The high-end audio industry lives by that. Nor, of course do I think that "all amps sound alike". The one does not follow from the other. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than yesterday's. In general, it is. New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to give us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago. Not only that, but we get that performance in a far more convenient package and for far less money. Certainly that's true with speakers, today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid '80's, I guess you're not keeping up. CD players are now obsolete artifacts of a decade or more back. Aside from overpriced high end audio jewelry, you can barely even buy new CD players any more. Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday, Actually not, since the best of them are virtually unchanged technology-wise from the days of vinyl. as are arms, and to a certain extent, turntables. No. But what about electronics? Of course they're better, they just have to be. The basic design principles of audio are completely changed. The canonical design for a modern piece of signal processing audio gear is a computer with some DACs wrapped around it. Active filters have long been supplanted by DSPs. FM radios are now based on a wideband RF stage that drives a digital converter and the rest of the unit runs in the digital domain. More audio is being distributed via general purpose digital networks (IOW, the internet) than on physical media. Power amps don't have heavy power transformers or output transformers any more. Hyper-clean watts are cheap. High powered, low efficiency speakers that sacrifice efficiency for size are the way things are now being done. A huge fraction of all music listening is being done via earphones and headphones that completely bypass the old school world of rooms and speakers. Special purpose audio media is simply going away. Even hard drives are being replaced with flash or network downloads. This is true for both audio and video. Better circuits, better capacitors, better resistors, modern output devices etc. Well, I had that smug conviction badly shaken recently. Wrong again. In a world of signal processing computers and DSPs, capacitors and resistors are vanishing from signal paths. For example even the coupling capacitors on headphone amps are being replaced with servo-reference voltage sources because the size and performance of coupling capacitors need not be tolerated. |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
Arny Krueger wrote:
Hyper-clean watts are cheap. High powered, low efficiency speakers that sacrifice efficiency for size are the way things are now being done. Persumably, this means that the big problem now is cooling the voice coils of the low efficiency speakers. Wrong again. In a world of signal processing computers and DSPs, capacitors and resistors are vanishing from signal paths. For example even the coupling capacitors on headphone amps are being replaced with servo-reference voltage sources because the size and performance of coupling capacitors need not be tolerated. Ah, thanks. That answers a question that was mystifying me: why bother with all these servo designs I keep seeing whjen all you need is a little cap? :-) Andrew. |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
"Andrew Haley" wrote in
message Arny Krueger wrote: Hyper-clean watts are cheap. High powered, low efficiency speakers that sacrifice efficiency for size are the way things are now being done. Persumably, this means that the big problem now is cooling the voice coils of the low efficiency speakers. Not the problem or even the most intractable problem. High temperature voice coils are commonplace. Traditional room acoustics are the still the major problem that remains to be overcome. For example a large audio system that I recently help set up used 4 18" woofers, each with 30 mm linear travel. Each of the two 2 ohm voice coils for each driver were attached to a channel output of a 1250 wpc/2 ohm stereo power amplifier. This system measures flat to well below 10 Hz, and can generate SPLs at that frequency well in excess of 115 dB with low distortion. In actual use I saw about 1/3 of the available linear travel being exercised. Wrong again. In a world of signal processing computers and DSPs, capacitors and resistors are vanishing from signal paths. For example even the coupling capacitors on headphone amps are being replaced with servo-reference voltage sources because the size and performance of coupling capacitors need not be tolerated. Ah, thanks. That answers a question that was mystifying me: why bother with all these servo designs I keep seeing whjen all you need is a little cap? :-) The coupling caps for a headphone amp seem small enough until one tries to fit an entire stereo receiver, music library, and music player into something with the approximate footprint of a comemerative stamp and maybe 1/4" thick. In this day and age high performance op amps can be so small and take so little power that one or more of them form a less costly and more effective alternative to two audio coupling capacitors for a 16 ohm headphone load. |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
Attack!
I understand you, Empire. I think there is some built in "life expectancy" more now than in the past... the way light bulbs are produced to function for a determined number of hours/power-cycles before failing so that the consumer must re-purchase periodically. They can make a 100 year bulb if they wanted too. Main thing is that, with electronics, we get more for the same money compared to predicessors. More what?! My first 1983 CD player was a 22 lb tank, but kinda sounded brittle compared to even the 5 lb slimline mas-market cheapos sold today. However, the 1983 model is still in use with a nephew. |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Mar 26, 12:24=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than yesterday= 's. New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to gi= ve us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago. =A0Certainly that's= true with speakers, today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid '80's, Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday, = as are arms, and to a certain extent, turntables. But what about electronics= ? Of course they're better, they just have to be. Better circuits, better capacitors, better resistors, modern output devices etc. Well, I had that smug conviction badly shaken recently. An audiophile buddy of mine called to say that he had a couple of "new" acquisitions that he wanted my opinion of. When he showed-up, I was somew= hat amused. His "new" equipment consisted of a pair of MONO Eico HF-20 integr= ated amplifiers from the 1950s. My friend had recently bought these from dispa= rate sources. He had run across one of them about a year ago at a garage sale = and was so impressed with it that he bought it and then started looking for a mate (for stereo). Well, he recently found =A0the mate to the unit and so equipped he started their "resurrection". The hardest part was replacing = the multi-section electrolytic capacitor in the power supply (these are no lo= nger available), which he did with modern tubular capacitors from Rubicon moun= ted under the chassis (where there was plenty of room). He then cleaned the controls, replaced the tubes, and fired them up. They both sounded fine, = It was then that he called me. Now, my main speakers are a pair of Martin-Logan Vista electrostatic hybr= ids. I was skeptical that a pair of =A020-Watt amps could drive the M-Ls , but= was willing to try. After making two-pairs of spade-lug-to-banana-jack adapte= rs (the old Eicos had those phenolic strip screw terminal speaker connection= s on the back which won't accommodate today's spade-lugs (screws are too close= to one another), much less a pair of banana plugs), we fired the amps up aft= er connecting them to my Sony XA777-ES SACD/CD player. The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite wr= ong. I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to abo= ut the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock). That was startling enough, but what came next was even more startling. =A0The amps sounded every bit as good as any modern amp. Now, I didn't do any DBTs against my reference amp or any such thing as that, I just listened. The little Eicos had solid, tight bass (often a failing of older tube amps) b= ut these had huge output transformers for their power - easily as big as the Acrosound untra-linear transformers that rival Dynaco used in their MK II monoblock amps (50 Watts/channel), and I attrubute their decent bass to those! =A0Mids were clear and clean with good presence on vocals. Highs w= ere clean, articulate, and didn't sound particularly rolled-off. =A0This real= ly surprised me as the impedance of the M-Ls drops to under 2 Ohms at 20 Khz= .. The only place I noticed any distress at all was on loud crescendos or wh= en I pushed the amp to high average levels of volume with the control well pas= t the noon position. At that point things started to get a little thick sounding. I get the general idea that with more efficient loudspeakers, t= hese little amps would equate themselves very handsomely at all volume levels = with any kind of music. =A0I could happily live with them as my main system if coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays the= m through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage Thoren= s TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet = the combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him. Aw, fer crissakes! Guys and gals - this is a hobby - And this forum exists to support that hobby. There are cutting edge technologies out there, there are vintage technologies out there and they all have their place in the choir. Permit some 'observations' i.e.: Opinions that I hold. Not holy writ by any means. 1. It is impossible to get the same performance out of a pair of earbuds, computer-speakers or even very good headphones as out of a pair of even moderately decent full-range speakers. These smaller items simply cannot move enough air to permit any sort of ambience outside of the skull. I do have a pair of rather good headphones - and they are used _only_ when courtesy requires, never by preference. 2. I would never argue that tubes are better than solid-state. However I would argue that as-applied-in-real-life, many good tube amplifiers sound better than many solid-state amplifiers of the same approximate power rating. Much of that has to do with behavior at the margins as most (but not all) tube equipment clips softly whereas most (but not all) solid state equipment does not. And some ears prefer the colorations of tube equipment. 3. Very good speakers driven by very good electronics are incredibly revealing. And that is not always a 'good' thing. With well-recorded, well engineered, well played music it mostly is. Otherwise, the mud & fudge added by inherent limitations hides other defects. 4. Vinyl shares the same general characteristics of tubes. Some prefer its colorations, and very good vinyl systems sound very good indeed. Is it necessarily exactly what was recorded in the same way as with a CD or other digital source? No. But neither is that the point. 5. Headroom will do more for a conventional/traditional stereo system than any other single user-operable input. All other things being equal, a 500 watt amp will sound better (more revealing) than a 10 watt amp. Although a 100 watt amp might not. So ultra-clean high- wattage power amps are a definite addition to the hobby - although by accident of being so revealing that may not necessarily be appreciated. Too often I have seen defects in the recording process attributed to 'brittle' amplification. 6. Audio is much like wine - a matter of preference, experience, availability and the moment. Our audio memory is generally wretched, inaccurate and wildly distorted such that even 24 hours after an experience there will be _NO_ reliable memory for it. Much as a wine one day enjoyed with tacos the next day is nasty with fresh fish - but we remember it as good from the previous day and therefore blame the fish. Just recently, I almost entirely reconfigured the "main" system. The only two items from the previous configuration are the CD changer and the tuner/pre-amp. Changed out were the speakers (MGAs replaced by MG- IIIs) and the power-amp (Revox A722 replaced by a Citation 16). Sound pretty wonderful. Also pretty ancient given that the newest item on the table is the changer at 6. Tuner/pre-amp at 37, power-amp at 35, speakers at 30+. The previous system was more-or-less unchanged for 3 years - and the change was driven by the opportunity to obtain a very- nearly-perfect set of MG-IIIs for sparrow-feed. Cosmetics being the only-and-very-minor issue. I expect I am getting more fun and pleasure out of $2,000 worth of stuff than many here get out of their much more costly equipment. Opinion based on some of the discussions here, not a judgment. In any case, ENJOY fer crissakes..... Been lurking for over a year - and then saw this... Yikes! Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On 26/03/2011 3:24 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
The hardest part was replacing the multi-section electrolytic capacitor in the power supply (these are no longer available) I fitted two brand-new multi-section electrolytic capacitors into a vintage valve amplifier just a few weeks ago. They are still produced in reasonable variety for the guitar amplifier market. |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 17:49:24 -0700, Esmond Pitt wrote
(in article ): On 26/03/2011 3:24 PM, Audio Empire wrote: The hardest part was replacing the multi-section electrolytic capacitor in the power supply (these are no longer available) I fitted two brand-new multi-section electrolytic capacitors into a vintage valve amplifier just a few weeks ago. They are still produced in reasonable variety for the guitar amplifier market. Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of vintage gear, including a Citation One preamp. I was told by everybody that these multi-section caps aren't available any more. Do you have a source? |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Apr 3, 12:54=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of vintage gear, including= a Citation One preamp. I was told by everybody that these multi-section cap= s aren't available any more. Do you have a source? https://www.tubeworld.com/metcaps.htm http://www.radiodaze.com/capsMS.htm http://www.dynakitparts.com/store/product.aspx?id=3D273 http://www.vibroworld.com/parts/tech15.html However, it is better, cheaper and more precise to simply re-stuff the existing can with new capacitors terminating through the phenolic wafer base. It takes a bit of skill and your wife's hair-dryer to release the old innards (well, more practice than skill), but once you have done it a few times it becomes quite simple. The most difficult part of the process is de-soldering and releasing the old can from the chassis without breaking off the twist-tabs. Modern capacitors are tiny as compared to older types and so this is entirely practical. Better: Single-value capacitors may be screened individually for whatever parameters apply. A typical electrolytic may be -20%/+100% and still meet 'tolerance'. Too much capacitance may mean a higher B+, especially mixed with higher wall-plate voltages these days - something to be considered. Better also as one may use a higher voltage with little or no cost penalty - Dynaco as one very typical example drove its power-supply filter caps at very, very near their rated voltage. Mix that with wallplate voltages often in excess of 120V, and that can be a bad combination. Cheaper: Individual capacitors made as-such are remarkably cheaper per uF than sectional caps. And, you already have the can and know that it will fit just fine. \ More precise - closely matched values, higher voltages, and the ability to add small-value film caps internally across the individual cap leads. I stopped looking for sectionals 20 years ago - and haven't lost a patient yet. Nor would I trust any NOS unit as (electrolytic) capacitors age whether they are in use or not - in fact, they age more from disuse than from use. Reforming is *possible*, but something I do only with the full understanding that eventual failure is just that - eventual. Will, not May, and When, not If. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 17:49:24 -0700, Esmond Pitt wrote (in article ): I fitted two brand-new multi-section electrolytic capacitors into a vintage valve amplifier just a few weeks ago. They are still produced in reasonable variety for the guitar amplifier market. Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of vintage gear, including a Citation One preamp. I was told by everybody that these multi-section caps aren't available any more. Do you have a source? As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and conceal a collection of modern capacitors inside of it. Capacitors have shrunk enough that this is generally very easy to do, and results in an equal-or-better end product. For example one of my friends did this with a pair of MacIntosh 75 watt tubed amps. |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 05:54:08 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 17:49:24 -0700, Esmond Pitt wrote (in article ): I fitted two brand-new multi-section electrolytic capacitors into a vintage valve amplifier just a few weeks ago. They are still produced in reasonable variety for the guitar amplifier market. Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of vintage gear, including a Citation One preamp. I was told by everybody that these multi-section caps aren't available any more. Do you have a source? As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and conceal a collection of modern capacitors inside of it. Capacitors have shrunk enough that this is generally very easy to do, and results in an equal-or-better end product. For example one of my friends did this with a pair of MacIntosh 75 watt tubed amps. Yes, that was certainly an alternative. Since the Citation had ample space under the chassis, I merely replaced the multi-section cap with modern caps wired under the chassis. I left the old multi-section cap on the chassis but completely disconnected, however, to maintain an authentic look. |
|
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
On Apr 4, 3:22=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 05:54:08 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 17:49:24 -0700, Esmond Pitt wrote (in article ): I fitted two brand-new multi-section electrolytic capacitors into a vintage valve amplifier just a few weeks ago. They are still produced in reasonable variety for the guitar amplifier market. Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of vintage gear, including a Citation One preamp. I was told by everybody that these multi-section caps aren't available any more. Do you have a source? As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and conceal a collection of modern capacitors inside of it. Capacitors have shrunk enough that this= is generally very easy to do, and results in an equal-or-better end produc= t. |
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New vs Vintage
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of vintage gear, including a Citation One preamp. I was told by everybody that these multi-section caps aren't available any more. Do you have a source? As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and conceal a collection of modern capacitors inside of it. Capacitors have shrunk enough that this is generally very easy to do, and results in an equal-or-better end product. For example one of my friends did this with a pair of MacIntosh 75 watt tubed amps. I'm finding this quite baffling. What is the point of replacing a multi-section cap with another one? Can't you just put a single- section cap in its place, or is the problem that the values/ voltages aren't available? Andrew. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| FS: Vintage Audio Tubes and other Vintage Electronic Parts | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| FS: Vintage Audio Tubes and other Vintage Electronic Parts | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| FS: Vintage Audio Tubes and other Vintage Electronic Parts | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| FS: Vintage Audio Tubes and other Vintage Electronic Parts | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Semi OT - vintage amplifier for vintage system? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Hybrid Mode
