Are linear tracking arms better than pivoted arms?
The conclusion to this thread is at the link below. Thank you, Raul, for sending me the link: The pivoted arm experiment is over Mepearson chose the ET-2. |
Recently had a look at the Moerch website: http://www.moerch.dk/ The new DP8 anisotropic arm is intentionally designed with a high horizontal mass - this is considered a desirable trait... Here we have had a whole discussion focused on the issues with a high horizontal mass, and we have at least two seperate pivoted designs which intentionally have high to very high horizontal mass and are very highly regarded. (Dynavector 50x family and the Moerch DP8) This appears to indicate that the focus is on the wrong variable.... bye for now David |
I just finished reading the thread - an epic effort which took me several hours to read and digest. I use a Revox B795 with the Revox Linatrack servo linear tracking arm. (as well as two pivoted arm TT's) The arm is around 2" long, has an effective mass of 4g, and is a unipivot design, with magnetic arm resonance damping. The pivot point is what is shifted using the servo mechanism - activated by an optical sensor, when the arm pivoting exceeds a certain angle. So in terms of force applied to the cantilever/stylus, the arm behaves as a ultra low mass, ultra short unipivot - there is no extra horizontal mass... The entire discussion with regards to horizontal mass in this thread was focused on specific design solutions, which have become the mainstream in linear tracking designs, but which were not and are not the only solutions by any means! Another thing I noted was there is a preponderance of focus on mid to low compliance cartridge designs. Not surprising given that this is a "high end" forum and the high end has for the most part headed down the path of mid to high mass arms with matching mid to low compliance cartridges. However I found it interesting that in the description of the design process for the Souther arm, all the cartridges used for testing were high compliance. - Even the DL103D - which was a high compliance version of the DL103 (all the current versions are low compliance). It seems to me that there was far too little discussion in this thread of the issues of cartridge matching with the LT arms. The LT arms were born in the heyday of high compliance - the Revox I use simply does not sound good with anything other than a high compliance cartridge (and preferably a very high compliance cartridge!). It was however modified by Empire (when that company was owned by Benz) - to better suit the Empire/Benz mid-compliance MC's - to which end the Delrin tonearm was replaced with a brass tonearm, the damping magnets were beefed up, as were the supports and the drive mechanism. Basically Benz (under the Empire banner) converted the Revox LT system from an ultra low mass arm, into a mid-mass arm to best suit their MC cartridges. This was a non-trivial exercise, and the modified TT retailed for more than double the price of the original Revox (which was not a cheap table either.) What I am pointing at here - is that many of these designs have their birth in relation to a particular type of cartridge (and other system parameters potentially). Even the valiant efforts of Benz/Empire could not turn the ULM Revox into a high mass setup... but they did turn it (apparently) into a very effective mid mass arm. If people are talking about mounting low compliance cartridges (eg: DL103, Koetsu Coral) onto arms originally designed for high compliance designs (eg: Souther) then it is not surprising to find the results less than stellar ... even if substantially modified to better suit lower compliance cartridges. With regards to tangential error, no pivoted arm comes close to what a properly adjusted LT is capable of.. (even though it works as a pivoted arm with the pivot on a sled moving either continuously - albeit at variable speed, or periodically... the so called "crabbing") The discussion of LT arms in this thread never really moved on to discuss the pros-cons tweaks/solutions and failures of servo armed LT's. bye for now David |
Dear " Cilantro " friends: One of the tipical Mexican sauces is this one: red tomatoes, cilantro, onion and chile jalapeño or habanero, all in raw status and tiny cut/nibble with salt as you taste it, name it: " pico de gallo " sauce ( beak's cock. ): just delicious with beef and tortilla. Regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear " Cilantro " friends: Here in México is everyday eating " exercise ". The Cilantro herb we use in almost all kind of food: soup, rice, beans, salsa ( sauce ), salad even tea. The cilantro flavor is different in USA than in México even in different regions in México its flavor is a little different. Its use is not only as " spice " but as a healt natural agent. Like many other herbs its active ingredients are benefitcial to our healt but in moderate dosis. Regards and enjoy the musiuc, Raul. |
Interesting mention of Grado carts. in this thread, which I specifically searched for. I wonder what some owners who reported bad luck with multiple linears, used for carts? I have the Grados to work very well on my MG-1. In the past with some other carts I could see the lateral movement manifest as cantilever stress. Sometimes, it was a very obvious wiggle. It may be that more synergy is needed with linears? Proper feed of air, cart., damping, etc. ??? best, Jon |
I'm sorry that i didn't comment on this thread at an earlier date but I just now found it. One thing that was not mentioned in any of the comments about the ET 2 arm is that the counterweight is decoupled via a leaf spring so its effective mass is lessened in the horizontal plane. This would lessen any of the destructive forces placed upon the stylus cantilever. I do not know of any other linear tracking arm that has this feature. How this works is nicely explained in the ET 2 instruction manual. I hope those of you who have owned this arm took the time to thoroughly read this well written and informative book. |
Ralph, Well-stated! I hope to record live, unamplified performances in differing venues with a Studer A810 at 15 ips, 1/4", 1/2 track, IEC EQ, and straight into the recorder...uncertain whether to use ATR Studio Master or RMGI SM900. Then, I could utilize these recordings to evaluate my system/room and optimize, accordingly :-) Vbr, Sam |
Over the years I have been involved with a fair number of recordings, some of which have made it to LP, others CD only and still others that only exist as R2R. What I have found is that having a master tape to help me with evaluation is extremely valuable. Further, working with the musicians and developing the recording techniques for a particular project helps a lot too. The primary thing is that you know what it sounded like live. If you go to LP from there, you know what the LP should sound like and it gives you a really valuable leg up on assessing other parts of the playback chain, for example the tonearm. On the last recording I did, I installed Western Electric tube mic preamps that I had rebuilt into the studio, and we ran them directly into the recorder, bypassing everything else. This is what I mean by developing the recording technique. Of course the technologies always falls short of the live musicians, but its all worthwhile as long as we keep two things in mind: strive for the best, and enjoy the music. |
Dear Samujohn: +++++ " So what would you like to see us/them do? " +++++ well, one answer is clear in these last 10-15 posts: that audiophiles/Agoner's at leat AGREE. Everyone of us have different opinions, some of those opinions are way different where some of those opinions are more similar than differents. Obviously that in a forum like this there are at least one reason from at the end we don't get an unanimous opinion: almost every one want to win, normaly these forums are to find out the winner and the loosers, IMHO we need some kind of mature about where the important subject be not who has the reason or whom is wrong but how we can get a more or les unanimous conclusions and I see it very complicated because every body wants to win! Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Hiho, well said. The pursuit of the absolute sound does not have to be an end unto itself. Exposure to the only absolute sound (live music), educates us, and helps us put together more satisfying sound systems. That's the point. Simply because it can not ever be achieved, does that mean that we should abandon that which might help us get 50%, or 80% of the way there? Or should we just say the hell with it, why bother? To me the answer is obvious. |
Atmasphere, I understand your confusion with how I seemingly arrived at a different conclusion. I did not do a very good job of explaining that I agreed with Syntax as concerns audiophiles, NOT manufacturers, as a group. Mepearson, from my vantage point, you prove my point. I don't believe I have the subjectivist argument reversed at all. My argument encourages listeners to listen and arrive at their own conclusions, NOT based on what others say. It has been demonstrated time and time again that numbers actually tell us very little about how something sounds. Remember "Perfect Sound Forever"? Cjfrbw, where to begin? All I can say is that, with all due respect, you could not be more mistaken. Reference to the "absolute sound" as you call it, is exactly what most musicians use, and prefer. The fact that they are seldom satisfied with reproduced sound makes my point. They listen to music in very different ways than most audiophiles do. They are accustomed to listening for subtleties available in live sound that are simply obliterated by the recording process. That is at the root of their disatisfaction. And BTW, musicians, as a percentage of the overall population, have far more audiophiles in their ranks than not; to debunk a popular myth. And they most certainly are sensitive to the true sound of instruments other than their own. Look, no one is suggesting that the pursuit of the absolute is the only way to enjoy music in the home. If it sounds good to any given person, great! As has been pointed out, why judge? But to deny that there exists, in fact, a true reference, is being closeminded, and to refer to the pursuit of such as "smug delusional" is a kind of aural equivalency that only serves to dumb-down excellence. |
We as audiophiles can only control what we can reproduce in what is captured, that is, we didn't record the damn sound. Since we have no control over the recording, the absolute sound is unobtainable. However, it is possible to get close to what the source is, that is, master-tape quality. What good is absolute sound when we cannot feed the reproduction chain with absolute sound? Besides, a lot of recordings are far from absolute and very often terrible sounding. I rather listen to a crude recording of Charlie Parker than a pristine recording of a Sheffield Lab record. How many times do I have to suffer through the recording of bats flying out of a cave?! Sometimes it's not a question of "does it sound like you are there" but "do you want to be there." Some audiophile recordings have music so bad that I wouldn't want to be there even if you pay me. Unless someone who can control every step of the chain from the microphone to the speaker end, the absolute sound is not possible. You can, however, get the absolutely toe tapping sound. ______ |
on a related subject to 'the Absolute Sound'; having high quality RTR 15ips 1/4" master dubs and good RTR decks does allow one to 'calibrate' other sources. it will not calibrate the down stream signal path, but it's easy to hear how close an Lp/tt/cart/phono stage/digital player is to the actual recording. yes; not all master dubs are created equal....but it's the best one can hope to do.....and certainly better than not having it. i have enough of these along with vinyl and digital masterings that the truth quickly is heard on what source/media is closest. |
Raul: So what would you like to see us/them do? The playback hardware is better than the recordings/media available to the consumer (at least 99% of the time). Software on both the recording and playback ends are the bottleneck. Atmosphere is a fine fellow, but but he (and us) are minnows in the ocean. |
Interesting thread, all opinions included. FWIW I concluded some time ago that the 'problem' in our hobby had its seeds in the development of 'stereo' sound including multi channel sound, where the objective became creating/sustaining the fantasy of listening to a live performance in a manner more grand that 'mono' sound allowed. The focus was on, and I think still remains in great part, the creation of that sonic 'stage' in your home. Not the replication of live music as heard live from an optimum position, although some effect was made and abandoned at various time at recording with a single or two closely spaced mikes. Refer to all of the terms inherent in describing reproducing recorded sound. Sound stage height, width, depth, specificity, warmth, accuracy, linearity etc. What do any of these terms have to do with a live performance. Not much I suspect, and this may be why, were it otherwise possible, that we will never hear a reasonable reproduction of live sound that isn't at odds with the formats we are given to live with. We will always be at the mercy of the recording engineer's and the industry's pursuit of a format that injects an artifice that is not consonant with the experience of hearing music live. Small wonder that many folks, myself included, who have graduated to a POV that allows them to set up their environment so that the music they play sounds good to their ear. I'm now at a stage that all that is important to me is that the equipment, software and hardware, not get in the way of the performance that I'm listening to. That alone is a tough enough task and its full of compromises but its easier in the long run than pursuing a Dulcinea. Thanks for the chance to rant! :-) |
Dear friends: Some way or the other IMHO all of you have reason, better yet part of reason. The subject is very " conflictive "/controversial but very interesting and a learnning one. It is no doubt that attend to hear/heard live music events ( with acoustic instruments or amplified. ) to any kind of music always help to understand the whole " thing ". All we know that today is absolutely impossible to recreate/copy bis a bis what a live event offer to the recording microphones and I repeat: to the recording microphones and not what we heard/hear at our seat position on that music live event that is " different ". More than that: what the recording enginnering/producer want we hear. IMHO less and less over the years the people/audiophiles ( noy you but the 98% of the audio people. ) are more in focus with the system hardware than with live music events and their comparisons are more between hardware vs hardware than software/music. In the other side and due that the high end audio is a " commercial $$$$$ legitim activity " and as part of human activities the majority of the products that the audio industry offer to us are mainly " commercial " products where its first target is to make money ( nothing wrong with that ) sometimes taking advantage of a poor know how on the majority of the customers. Exist in this audio industry the designers/manufacturers where their first targets are and have an intimate link with the Music and what this realy means and with top quality product performance looking for the best for the knowledge customers, unfortunately you can count these kind of designers/manufacturers with almost the fingers of your hands. Many of us already posted in different threads what we are posting this time, can we agree?, I think that we did in the main part of the subject: the high end audio industry establishment where we belongs must change and seek/look for an evolution in benefit of the whole audio industry. IMHO all us that belongs ( some way or the other. All the majorities. ) to the audio high end establishment have a responsability on those changes on that evolution and IMHO we have in our each " area/place/land where we move " to take action to make " things happen ". It is not enough that we just " talk " about in this and other forums but to make something about to change our today " attitude " and share a new attitude to the whole audio industry. From this point of view ( that could be wrong. ) every one on the high end audio industry must to change to " evolution ": designers/manufacturers, professional reviewers and audio magazines, audio retailers/dealers, we customers, audio forums, recording industry, record manufacturers and record retailers, etc, etc. The majority of our audio establishment needs IMHO a set of new audio standards/rules. An easy task?, certainly not. The problem is not when we can " finish " it but when all the audio industry can/could start/begin with, how the whole audio industry could agree on new standards, how the customers needs could be matched by the audio industry. I think that we have a lot of questions about and maybe no sure/precise answers to amalgamate the different " sectors " and targets in the audio industry. If all of us want that " things " improve and be better and goes faster than today I think that we customers that some way or the other " mantain " with money the whole industry have a main role on that " evolution " and we have to accept and take action according to that main role. Talk and speak between us helps almost nothing. Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
My minor revelation about the relativity in so much of this occured at a 2CH show while eaves-dropping on elevator conversation between four print magazine reviewers. They were exhanging preferences about various rooms. Each one had a different preference, none of which jibed with my own perceptions. One reviewer who liked the sound of what I considered a particularly mediocre and expensive room, had a published review the following month of that room's manufacturer. To thine self be true, particularly at today's prices. |
Cjfrbw, I agree with a lot of what you posted, I just don't think that should stop us as audiophiles/manufacturers or whatever from trying. I think intention plays a huge role- the guy that gets into a high end audio business to make money is there for the wrong reasons, just like any other field of endeavor except maybe banking... Frogman, I also agree with nearly everything you said but I don't understand how you came to the opposite conclusion, or is it that the matter is that ephemeral?? |
I disagree with both Syntaz and Frogman. I hardly believe there is "no hope" left for High End audio. And Frogman, I think you have the subjectivist argument reversed. I think there are far too many people who will believe anything versus people who only believe what measurements tell them. What we need is a balance of art and science and we do have companies that are trying to achieve that balance. It is my opinion that pretty much everyone who is involved in the design/manufacturing of high-end gear is standing on the shoulders of giants. When you look at the wealth of knowledge that existed in tube electronics just in this country alone over 60 years ago it is humbling. When you realize how many companies are basically just recycling old schematics into "new" products, it makes you appreciate the great engineers of the past and what they have given us. I find it interesting that we are seeing a revival in very old gear that was cast aside in our march to progress. Witness the Garrard 301 and the Thorens TD124 and even the much newer Technics SP 10 family. SPU cartridges are still being made. Some people never stopped listening to horns and SETs. If someone could find a way to manufacture R2R tapes at a reasonable cost, there would be a much bigger boom in that market than the tiny rumble we are seeing now. I know some people will argue this point, but I think the most progress that is being made today in the high-end is not with electronics, tonearms, turntables, etc. The most progress is being made with speakers and their enclosures. There is far more science being brought to bear on speaker design today and there already existed a vast body of knowledge. |
The "absolute sound" guys are like the celebrity gossips who claim to know what celebrities are thinking and feeling, without the celebrities themselves chiming in to say what is really going on. Exquisite BS. The "absolute sound" implies that a listener goes to live music, has a perfect tape recorder in his/her head that allows perfect recovery of the original event, then can perfectly compare it with a reproduction, without consulting the original musician who performed the piece who actually knows the sound of his/her own instrument for comparison. I would imagine most musicians would find an "absolute sound" type critic pretty laughable. I imagine that Brad Pitt or Angenlina Jolie would react in dismay at the typical gossip monger claiming to know their thoughts, feelings and intentions. You hear musicians all the time who lament that recorded sound never captures the essential character of their instruments. Even head bangers are upset when their ripping, tearing, metallic chaos is improperly rendered by recorded sources. A musician who has a good idea of what his own instrument is supposed to sound like, may not have a very good idea of what everybody else's instruments are supposed to sound like. Add to this mystery the spices added by the engineers of the recording booth, then the "absolute sound" critic is engaging a solipsistic pretense that a particular individual can discern any kind of "absolute sound". It may be easy to distinguish the sound of a Yamaha piano from a Steinway from a recorded source, but that doesn't mean that a recording sounds like either absolute instrument. Many "absolute sound" guys tend to go to live performances of classical music, and then decide that because they have elevated sensibilities by doing so, they then are on a higher plane when judging stereo systems and components. The best stereo system for rendering the sound of an oboe might be a pair of oboe shaped speakers. Those speakers might be incredibly dismal at portraying any other kind of music, or hopeless at portraying groups of musicians in space. So whether the "absolute sound" exists as a theoretical construct, the barriers to attaining such a condition are so relentlessly unfavorable that those who claim this skill are more in the category of the "smug delusional" than the "absolute sound." |
i think every 'school of preference' within the hobby can claim some turf in the reality sweepstakes....depending on one's personal tastes and musical genre tendancies. gosh; you have the ultra low wattage/horn guys, the mid-power tube guys, the big speaker big ss amp guys and other groups such as the Quads, or appogees, the MBL's or whatever. aspects of live music are evidant to one degree or another in each 'school'.....but it's the synergy of a system including sources and complimentary software which determine the degree of success at approaching reality of reproduction.....and then....there is the room. with all those varibles....how in the hell can someone say who is on the right path and who is not without actually spending time in their system? it's one thing to try to describe what our goals might or should be as listeners. it's a whole different thing to judge someone else's system as 'not valid' or 'they' 'forgot what "the real thing" had sounded like. Today, "good" sound is whatever one likes. Fidelity is irrelevant to music.' |
Once I accepted the argument that what was desired in reproduction was a straight wire with gain. Such a system would let one hear what the "recording engineer" intended. I have many years experience performing, especially liturgical music. I also play the acoustic guitar. When I worked in a recording studio, the engineer would invite the conductor and/or soloist to listen to the various takes and express their preference. This was always an exercise in diplomacy, because the engineer always ignored their input. He listened with headphones or with his ears fairly close to the huge A7 monitors- far to close for them to properly integrate. If asked, he would say he was trying to get the sound to "match" his previous recordings that had "cut well" when sent off to the engineers who practiced that black art. The last thing I want is to hear is a violin or a voice on an A7 up close! Yet many of these fifty year old recordings are thought to be among the best ever recorded and are reissued on every new format. There are various conclusions one can draw from this information, but I opine that we all listen around the defects in our playback equipment like the engineer listened around his. We adjust our systems until they "sound right". |
Cjfrbw, with all due respect, nonesense! As we expose our ears to more and more live, "real" music, we develop a deeper and deeper understanding of the obvious, and not so obvious traits of music performed live. A comparison to how a piece of electronic equipment is able to express any given trait becomes easier and easier. Most audiophiles are, unfortunately, in the dark about a lot of this. Even a lot of the reviewers (if talk about them we must) who claim to use the sound of live music as a reference fall way short. One very common (and pathetic) observation has always been something to the effect that XYZ component allows the listener to differentiate between, say, an oboe from an English horn. How pathetic can one get. I suggest that if a listener is not able to differentiate the sound of an oboe from an English horn while listening to Muzak pumped through a $3 speaker at the local Walmart, the main problem is not the speaker's lack of fidelity, but rather, the listener's lack of exposure to the sound of the two instruments. Would that same listener not be able to recognize the sound of his or her spouse played back over the same speaker? |
There is as much if not more subjectivity with "real" as there is with "sounds good". If you really want the ravings of the self anointed, the "absolute sound" guys take the cake. At least the "sounds good" guys know what they like, the "absolute sound" guys can be parading royalty, dictating to the heathens. |
Syntax, I could not disagree more. I've spent the last 20 years working out what the human hearing/perceptual rules are, and then making sure that our gear obeys those rules. This work is on-going- I am also exploring what Chaos Theory has to say about audio electronics, and have further research showing how important it is for the playback system to reflect human perceptual rules, backed up by some well-known neuro-scientists. Now maybe I have got my own findings and the like, but I know I am not the only one who is engaged in such research. Its true that there is less research than there was 40 years ago, but it is not true to say that current equipment is made simply to sound pleasing. There is a difference between that and being made to be as good as it possibly can be with the known science. |
Syntax, I could not agree with you more. I disagree only with the implication that because the goal of achieving reproduction that is faithful to the sound of real music was difficult to achieve, the pursuit of that goal was abandoned. The pursuit of that goal was abandoned by audiophiles, not the High End Industry as a whole. I believe that there are still manufacturers that pursue that goal. The problem is that audiophiles not only "forgot" what real music sounds like, but younger audiophiles never learned. This, ironically, is also the reasons that too much validity is given by some to the idea that because something is technically "better" than something else, then it must be better overall. Not so! Audiophiles seem less and less willing to accept concepts that are not easily quantified or explained rationally. In an era of so much technical advancement, it is easy to understand why this is so. The problem is that we are talking about music. And music is an incredibly complex, subtle, and organic thing. It expresses human emotions. I find it incredibly arrogant, and not very insightful, that some think that they can fully explain what is going on in music, and it's reproduction, with numbers and technical measurements. In my opinion, to not understand that a certain amount of subjectivity is every bit as valid, in absolute terms, as purely technical analysis, is to not fully understand the meaning of music. |
High End Audio Industry has lost its way, there's no hope now. Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound of real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what "the real thing" had sounded like. Today, "good" sound is whatever one likes. Fidelity is irrelevant to music. Since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different people rarely agree about sound quality. |
actually, the basic guts (of vintage tables)...with a modern arm, improved plinth, and LOMC cartridge can compete on the highest level of tt performance. I agree with you, Mike. By now, the idler-drive genre has enough ink on them without me adding anything new to the topic. What is little talked about is the "guts" of direct-drive tables. Many vintage DD units suffered from bad plinth design with inadequate solidity (often mounted to crappy plastic or flimsy particle-board), and isolation from resonance and interference of electronics. I like the bare bone approach, that is, to take the motor out of the chassis/plinth/enclosure and mount it to a something solid, material of your own choice, and extend the cable by at least couple feet to the stock chassis or an enclosure that contains the electronics/motor-drive/control-console/power-supply. In fact, the Monaco Grand-Prix, Teres Certus, or early Micro-Seiki DDX/DQX-1000 takes the same approach. Almost ALL DD tables can be improved this way. Mike have done that with your Technics SP-10Mk3 with the slate plinth, same concept. There are many other brands of superb DD tables with great potential out there can be had for very reasonable price and can be converted this way with good result. I no longer have any Technics tables but I still got great results with many mid-priced JVC, Pioneer, Kenwood, Yamaha, etc... I haven't tried it on Sony and Denon tables yet because they require mounted a tapehead to check platter speed so the mounting is tricky. Modern belt-drive turntables have been doing similar things by separating the motor from the main plinth. Once again, Micro-Seiki was ahead of their time with their RX-1500 and beyond. It's only logical DD will go that direction. The days of having everything in a box for DD tables seems less attractive to me now. Once again, I went off topic from tonearm discuss so I guess I should really create a new thread. Anyway, just a thought. _________ |
The rest of the system would be good value for money today, but who would swap their current turntable for a TD 124? actually; the basic guts of a 40+ year old Thorens or Garrard idler, or a 30-40 year old direct drive EMT, Technics, Sony or Pioneer....with a modern arm, improved plinth, and LOMC cartridge can compete on the highest level of tt performance. my Garrard 301 and Technics SP-10 Mk3 are really wonderful tt's in every way. |
1960's favorite system. AR turntable w/ Sure $100, Dyna SCA 35 $100, AR4X speakers $100 That $300 today would need a zero added. Today's $3000 system would have much higher resolution. High end, say K-horns, Mac 275, Marantz 7C, Thorens 124, Grado arm, would cost what, $2500, or in todays terms, $25,000. The rest of the system would be good value for money today, but who would swap their current turntable for a TD 124? So you turntable/arm/cart guys have made the most progress. |
03-18-10: DertonarmYowsa, that's a few mill in today's dollars! There were always options to spend real big money on audio. You could get AEG/Telefunken/Siemens or ERPI WE Mirrorphonic to built and set-up a cinema-like audio set-up in your private home.Bet that cost a few nickels, back in the day. |
We oldsters were so lucky to have dynakit, KLH and so on to give us a taste of what the rich had with McIntosh,Bozak,Marantz........ We also got lucky with stereo as a standard, with tons of recordings already available (on tape) in the format prior to the development of stereo records. Stereo on a five or seven channel home theater setup sounds confused and less than inspiring. I watch DVD concerts on occasion, but generally finish with the CD copy in my audio room. We need to convert a Steve Jobs to quality audio recording. Perhaps we could send Dave Wilson. But then again, I am preaching to the choir. |
Their list of amps is incomplete :) It does seem as if a lot of 'advances' in technology are a sort of race to the bottom: mp3, and CDs to name a couple we are all familiar with. Many of the changes I saw in 'hifi' receivers over the years (I used to run a service shop) were changes made simply to reduce shipping and assembly costs. Other technologies are moves forward, like when overhead valves supplanted side valve (flathead) technology in internal combustion engines. |
Darkmoebius "Seems to me that the highest end has gotten more expensive, larger, and not much easier to use. Some of the components at the link above don't seem too easy to setup or use." Agreed. I used to enjoy ogling ultra expensive gears, much like pornography to audiophiles. But I no longer get that kind of pleasure anymore and much of what I see is vulgar and decadent. If a piece of gear is art, I still see it as functional art that should still serve a purpose, much like a well designed architecture. But I am seeing less of the functional part and much like a jumble of expensive parts put together to impress than to express. Very soon we will have a paper plate manufactured by Tiffany. I don't have problem with people enjoying them much like people looking at luxury car magazines. And once a while there are few products that are innovative and really have something to say and keep my interest. For the most part, I don't even have the urge to go to a dealer to check it out in person. And not to mention confronting the snobbery of most dealers. Again, it's just me. Maybe I am getting old... Sorry to be so off topic. My apologies. __________ |
Dear Darkmoebius, in teh early 1930ies you could order from H.H.Scott a "Quaranta". If you did so - and included all possible features including your own recording device with cutting lathe... - it would have cost you US$5000+ in the early 1930ies. Compared in status and buying power of the day it surpasses anything that is marketing today just to fulfill the demand of some east asian audio collectors to show off their wealth within their peer group. There were always options to spend real big money on audio. You could get AEG/Telefunken/Siemens or ERPI WE Mirrorphonic to built and set-up a cinema-like audio set-up in your private home. Things like these were done both sides of the Atlantic in the years between the 2 big wars and they did cost more than any of us could possibly imagine. The world was there before any of us - there is nothing new today - just more hype, less seriousness (in design - not in talking about...), less education and less background in audio. |
03-18-10: DertonarmYes, being a SET and high(ish) efficiency owner, I agree. But a lot of the high-end seems follow an inverse law to what Syntax said above 03-17-10: SyntaxI'm not sure, but I don't think there were the financial equivalent(adjusted for inflation) of $300k Goldmund Reference Turntables, $250k Transrotor Argos TT, $700k Wisdom Audio Infinite Grand speakers, $500k Moon Audio Titan speakers, $375k Goldmund Telos amplifer, $255k Wavac SH-833 amplifier or anything like this website sells Seems to me that the highest end has gotten more expensive, larger, and not much easier to use. Some of the components at the link above don't seem too easy to setup or use. In general, though, Syntax's quote applies to just about everything technological - TV's, computers, commodity audio, cameras, etc. |
Darkmoebius - and high-end went back all the way to the 1920/30ies and today you have 18W SE-Amplifiers (Lamm, WAVAC etc.) and super expensive full-range drivers and speakers which usually do outperform a Linkwitz-filtered 4 way speaker with a cross-over so complex that what the amplifier actually sees, is not a coil or a "load" but a black hole..... Same with tonearms (hurray - we are back !!) - there are 30 and 40 year old designs which still can teach most "modern" designs a few things and do. |
03-17-10: DertonarmI should have qualified my comment within the framework of high-end audio, where we've gone from 15wpc triode integrated console amplifiers and speakers to 4-box actively filtered preamplifiers and 6-8 ft full range speakers in the last 60 yrs. |
I get the impression that Samujohn speaks for many of us in his last sentence :"...It's about the enjoyment of music -and friends." I've always wondered how far can we take our technology and for me straight tracking arms were always an expression of that. I've always been a fan of the idea of them, and often more disappointed by them as a result. It is why I run a pivot arm (BTW the Triplanar has such hard bearings in it that they got investigated by the Department of Homeland Security because they use more of them than Boeing...), but regard it as a temporary measure until I see what I want in a straight tracker. OTOH I've also wondered if there might be a way to solve the problem the other way 'round- by building a cutter head system that cuts radially rather than straight, although in looking at my cutting lathe, seems like it might be quite an undertaking... |
Dertonarm raises the basic question: What are we trying to accomplish with all this gear and hardware? I am 65, but when I was 17, I worked in a small, sort of "feeder" studio, some miles from Nashville. We normally used 15ips stereo tape and recorded both music and radio ads. Our monitors were Altec A7's. I have never had a home system as convincing as our master tapes. A times we received 30ips mono ads for Coca Cola which were dubs from Atlanta. Jesus! The dynamics would make you jump! Would that I could do that at home today. Home reproduction of prerecorded media is an entirely different situation. Digital is great, but CD's are pitiful. (I plan to throw all mine way soon.) I have little interest in listening to a studio mix on my headphones, except to analyze something. I have a modest size room and budget. I have performed some of the music that I listen to. In reproduction in my home, like most of us, I want to simulate some of the excitement of the original performance. Quad speakers,for example, or LS3/5's have a million obvious shortcomings, but manage to do more to convey the "spirt" of the performance that many full range speakers. I will try to formulate; I try to simulate, not replicate. Deliberate distortion is not bad, it is just a tool like any other. Generally I prefer subtractive distortion to additive, but not always. I enjoy my system, but others with bigger rooms and budgets do better. It's a big hobby. It's about the enjoyment of music -and friends. |
