Back in the early 60s, 70s and up to the mid 80s, the primary source of music was Phono or Cassette tape
A dedicated $10,000 phono stage wasn't even a thing back then.
No. This is a myopic view of the world.
Example - Final Audio released a diamond cantilevered low output moving coil in 1974 along with dedicated phono stages shortly thereafter. the stylus tip and cantilever were cut from a 1 carat natural diamond.
There were plenty of others.
You need to look a bit further than Sears, Roebuck & Co or Wal Greens for your audio history.
|
The way I experienced it in the US on the east coast, the Supex LOMC started the LOMC craze in the early to mid 70s. Harry Pearson and his Absolute Sound mag had a lot to do with it. SUTs were not in vogue. Mark Levinson marketed a prepreamp designed by John Curl, the JC1. Most audiophiles owned MM phono stages and therefore needed the gain boost. $1000 for a phono stage or a full function preamp more likely, was stratospheric. The Infinity Servo Statik 1 for $2000 was among the most expensive speakers on the market. In 1972, a new Porsche 911S was about $12,000.
|
The way I experienced it in the US on the east coast, the Supex LOMC started the LOMC craze in the early to mid 70s.
You obviously didn't run with the Ortofon crowd.
Ortofon sold plenty of LOMC's in the US from the late 1940's onwards along with matching SUT's. Shure, Stanton and Empire all had MC offerings in the 1960's. I also have a NOS Neat V1000 MC from that period amongst my cache of MC's.
|
Excel Sound ( OEM ), Sugano ( Koetsu ), Takeda San ( Miyabi ) all started producing excellent MC's in the 1960's.
|
EMT ( Germany ) started their excellent range of MC cartridges in the late 1950's early 60's.
|
Leak and Tannoy ( England ) produced excellent moving coil cartridges in the 1950's and 60's
|
I reported “the way I experienced it”, and my experience is dictated by the fact that I didn’t become a bona fide audiophile until about 1970. Yes, I knew nothing about Ortofons sold in the 1950s. Shure, Grado, and ADC high output cartridges dominated the US market until the mid 70s.But I do maintain that J Gordon Holt in the late 60s and then HP in the 70s, both journalists, virtually created audiophilia as we now know it in the US.
|
Forgot Pickering and Stanton as dominant cartridge brands in the US in the 70s and before.
|
What tragedy? If phono stages over the years were as deficient as OP suggests, how in hell did the vinyl LP format survive these many years?
|
Extracts are about Phonostages Produced in the late 60's and up to the mid 70's
Spec quotation from Mid 70's
" distortion was lower than the residual distortion of the test equipment, so for the development of this model it was necessary to start using a computer-controlled audio analyzer capable of analyzing harmonic distortion to a 0.00005% order, and with this equipment the total harmonic distortion measured from the phono (MM) input to the Record Out terminals (20Hz — 20Khz, total from second to tenth order) and shown in the specifications was an astonishing 0.0007%. "
A Spec from the 1960's
( 30 Hz to 15 kHz (± 0.3 dB deviation from RIAA curve)
The same Brand from the early 70's
| Phono: |
74 db (Sensitivity 3 mv)
70 db (Sensitivity 1 mv) |
Phono : within ± 0.3 dB of the RIAA standard curve
Different Brand from the later 70's
| RIAA deviation |
20 Hz to 20 kHz ± 0.2 dB |
| Signal-to-noise ratio (IHF-A network) |
Phono:88dB |
|
|
The Link has a timeline for evolving products becoming available for Analogue Replays both pre/post RIAA.
It could be read as when the evolving Transducer was ready for a Teacher, the evolving Phon' appeared and Vice-Versa.
I'm sure those who have a knowledge of how a circuit works and are not historians, will see the earliest versions of circuitry that may be a favourite.
https://www.darlingtonlabs.com/audio-history/blog-post-title-two-3nr8k
|
@dover
Not sure where you're going with your comment, buddy.
Never got anything audio or audio info from Sears or Wall Green.
Keep your assumptions to yourself hotdog.
|
I don't dispute that there were some very good MC cartridges back in the 70s and 80s I had a medium output MC Audio Quest cartridge in1983 that cost nearly $1,300. It worked just fine through the phono stage on my Audible Illusions pre. The few Audio Philes that I knew, using a low output MC cartridge, as mentioned by lewm, used a rather inexpensive gain, not an expensive, dedicated phono stage.
|
Let me make the OP more direct. Suggest 3 phonostages built in the golden era (1950 - 1985) which would do justice to a $30k turntable with a $5k cartridge (assuming appropriate Tonearm) today
|
Pose the same question vis a vis cartridges, amplifiers, and speakers. One would have equal difficulty with a definitive answer. Why then do you use the term "golden era"? It's all fun and games.
|
No serious effort was made to make top quality phonostages to match the remaining analog innovations.
@pani I don't agree with your opening post or this one above. We designed our phono section in 1988 and it was a year before our line section was developed; then we introduced our MP-1 preamp, which was fully differential and balanced. By your premise that fully balanced phono section didn't exist. But it did. There were a good number of very good phono sections for high end audio in the 1980s.
I think if you examine the Harmon Kardon Citation 1 (1958) you'll see a fairly elaborate phono section for the era. LOMC cartridges really didn't exist at the time so that phono section was for MM cartridges, and it was extremely competent.
|
In relation to the 50's and Phonostage Technology, the Hard Medium Embedded Data was slow to grow in large volume for the the info available that was able to be embedded. Potentially meaning, without a consistency in what to work with. meant that design was not as forthcoming as a later time when there was a stabilisation of what is to be a embedded data.
I suggest it was a time when certain individuals with a capability were unsure where to with an advancing design.
This is suggested, as RIAA is recorded in historical accounts, as being Trickled into the Industry practices as Standardized EQ, reports suggest the take up was not immediate and become more popular across years of the decade.
Then there data that enabled Stereo that arrived at the latter part of the decade.
The Question is at what time was the industry in the know Stereo was not too far into the future, as this might of been a brakes on influence.
|
The Question is at what time was the industry in the know Stereo was not too far into the future, as this might of been a brakes on influence.
@pindac Stereo reel to reel was available as early as 1954 using 'staggered head' format.
|
@pani
Good topic for discussion, thanks. I do not particularly believe that the lack of good phono stages capable of supporting low output moving coil cartridges in the "golden era" e.g. pre 1980 was a tragedy. The better amplifiers and preamplifiers of the day did an excellent job at cleanly amplifying the signal of the better Moving Magnet cartridges of that era,
Aside from the Denons and Ortofon SPU (which each historically used SUTS for the first amplification stage), LOMCs did not start becoming popular until after 1980 or so. In which case it was an analog tragedy that neither existed in the golden age.
However the industry has since responded quite well as there are a number of very high quality internal and external phono preamps that can support the best of the best LOMCs. I would argue the golden age of vinyl playback is NOW.
|
I could never understand how many audiophiles buy cartridges that cost more than 10 thousand dollars and at the same time don't care on the quality of phono preamplifiers.
|
|
I'm whish share my journey with external phono stages and the significant improvements I've experienced.
My first external phono stage was a Croft Micro tube preamplifier with a passive RC RIAA circuit and a cathode follower preamplifier output stage, which I acquired in 2002. Later, I purchased a used EAR 834p. Despite their different RIAA designs (active and passive), both the Croft and EAR offered similar sound quality, though I slightly preferred the EAR.
My next project was inspired by Romy The Cat's "End of Life" (EOL) phonostage, which is based on the EAR 834p schematics. The EOL design features a superior power supply (with a parallel stabilizer and LCLC filter) and air RIAA capacitors, which are improvements over the original 834p. I built this into a single box unit, and it was a significant upgrade from the original 834p. Over the years, I continued to refine it with further upgrades, including a larger and better power supply, as well as improved cathode and output capacitors.
More recently, I rebuilt the EOL into a two-box system, and the resulting difference in sound quality has exceeded my expectations.
This experience has reinforced that while the RIAA schematic is crucial, the implementation truly makes a huge difference. My current EAR 834p version sounds vastly different from the original.
|
While what you wrote, and what I am about to write, has absolutely nothing to do with the "topic", such as it is a topic, I will add that I too have found that upgrading the capacitors used in the RC type RIAA network makes a tremendous difference, BUT one must be certain to use exactly the same values of C as was used by the designer, else the RIAA will be inaccurate. (Even high quality capacitors are only specified to be within a few percent of the marked value; you have to measure each one individually to reproduce the curve.) This really means you need an accurate capacitance meter first to read the values used in the original, and then you need the meter to select from among the replacement capacitors, to find exact values. It's very worthwhile if you have the patience. And of course, PS upgrades almost always help if done right.
(I kind of wonder how you got away with air capacitors since I understand that they can be unstable in value due to humidity, etc.)
|
In my phonostage are only two small air capacitors 330pf and 110pf are important for RIAA equalization accuracy. All other - interstage, output, cathode filament PS and B+ PS capacitors values are not important in this schematics.
I setted up RIAA air capacitors with capacitor meter. But I don't take into account air humidity. Air capacitor advantage: the dielectric is not sensitive to polarity changes.
|
Air capacitor advantage: the dielectric is not sensitive to polarity changes.
Neither is mylar, polypropylene, polystyrene or Teflon.
|
|
@jasonbourne71 The "reference standard" in High End is the same as it has always been: its resemblance to live music as heard in the concert hall. UNAMPLIFIED. It’s not as though that hasn’t always been the standard for, say, TAS. Can’t speak to Stereophile or the other mags, as they rarely referred to the live experience.
So, for those of us who play instruments, whichever component renders instruments and vocalists the way they sound in real life is "the best." And that includes dynamics. Knowing how an instrument sounds (specific brands, too) makes it easier. Unfortunately, many people have never had a music class in their lives, or had to take it in school, so their choices will be based on something other than "live" experiences.
And phonostages are not that hard to identify if someone is familiar with music. The Vendetta, so often referred to in here, had a distinct sound and not for an instant sounded like the phonostage of the Convergent or the Modulus or the Jadis. Their differences were all audible, especially with the Convergent, which had very little sound of its own (except in the midbass).
|
McLeod, how many among us can say he or she has heard unamplified music in a concert hall? Most of us regularly hear live music in a small venue, amplified. Some of us do attend concert halls, always also amplified. Yet still one hall sounds different from another. Often I can get closer to verisimilitude at home. Not always of course. That was the flaw in the TAS thesis. A bit of snobbery.
|
In a great vinyl analogue system a great phono stage is the icing and cherry on the cake. Trouble is that a great phono stage will not correct deficiencies of turntable arm and cartridge. Given a great turntable, great arm and great cartridge, a great phono stage will fly into the stratosphere. A good but never great turntable with a mismatched good but never great arm and good but never great cartridge into a great phono stage will never sound great.
The thing about a great phonostage is that it gives an unimpeded view onto the turntable arm and cartridge. All that is the full utilisation of a great turntable arm and cartidge. In that instance we have a great vinyl analogue front end. A balance of virtues across the vinyl front end will show the full benefit of a phono stage. The phono stage is a 'receiving component' not an originator. The end result of a phono stage is dependent upon what is fed into it as much as its own capability.
|
@theophile
Well put. As I said four weeks ago early on in this thread, the turntable hierarchy is:
bearing > power supply > sub-chassis > tonearm > cartridge > phono amp
|
@lewm
I agree that it is snobbery.
Speaking as someone who has played an unamplified acoustic instrument for several decades, I would never claim that this somehow gives me better judgement than anyone else on what constitutes excellent sound quality.
What we are trying to do is most faithfully render what is on the record regardless of genre.
|
|
End Sound that is heard from an unamplified instrument is a End Sound that is not Directional like the End Sound being encountered when near a Speaker.
An unamplified instrument is a End Sound that is Omnidirectional, it is very very different to Directional.
An audio system undoubtedly produces sound that is very easy to show a Acoustic Instrument is being used for the recording being made.
Believing the Sound is Omnidirectional will be a Psychoacoustic influence as a individuals unique Perception, maybe created by the hand of a very adept recording engineer. It will not be the result of the Directional Sound being encountered through a Speaker.
|
@newton_john stated " bearing > power supply > sub-chassis > tonearm > cartridge > phono amp "
I am on board with this sequence, it ties in with my Journey over quirte some years now.
Bearing - I have began investigation and having works carried on on the Platter Spindle Bearing Housing selected materials and their assembly for many years, this started in the 90's and is still off great interest today, after a few different design for a Bearing redesign being used in a selection of owned TT's.
The outcome with TT's used has been a discernible substantial betterment that has been discovered when compared to the original OEM Bearing, even if the OEM Bearing has been thoroughly cleaned and overhauled, the luxury of owning duplicate Models of TT's enables such investigation.
Power Supply - Since the 90's I have been learning about where there are improvements to be found. It took a change of a ID TT Model to bring in the first Standalone Power Supply / Speed Controller.
The new introduced PC / SC was able to be used on the Prior in use ID TT.
The Standalone PC / SC showed its capabilities at being able to substantially tidy up an End Sound when attached to both TT's.
The Standalone PC / SC was loaned out for extended periods, which was Instrumental in encouraging others to build their own versions off which a few were not full clones. I have been demo' all new designs v's my own model and can stare there is better than my own that I now know off in relation to the design I own.
A few years past, I was to be demo'd the Prototype Quartz Lock Speed Control that is now the Long Dog Audio Quartz Lock Speed Control.
On another occasion I was loaned the Production LDA Quartz Lock Speed Control, as it was known to the LDA Proprietor I was very interested in Standalone Speed Control Units. The LDA was compared to my own PS / SC and taken to other homes with a version of my own PS / SC in use. The LDA was used with both Garrard 401 and Lenco TT's in a variety of build types.
The LDA proved in all comparisons and agreed by the owners of a PC / SC that the LDA was the one able to make the biggest impression of a betterment to the End Sound.
To get a broader overview the my PTP Solid 9 > PC / SC > LDA was used in a system familiar to myself. There was a Group of 10 Present at the local HiFi Group meet up, where the audio agenda was to assess the SC's and then follow up with a Platter Mat Bake Off.
The LDA was voted the SC to be used for the upcoming Platter Mat demo's
Today - I am a DD TT user with Upgrades to Bearing Housing and to the OEM Speed Control Design, I am no longer experiencing the ID TT's unless requested to bring it along to a meet up, or to give somebody not knowing how they perform a Demo'.
Sub Chassis - For me I refer to this as a Plinth, even though with Lenco ID TT's a lot was done with the TT's Chassis to improve it as an interface material.
When it comes to Plinths I have tried out a range of materials from Stone in different Masses and constitution ( Natural Formed / Manmade ) - Metal - Metal/ Wood Composite - Wood Board in different compressions for the Wood Board Construction and Different Masses used for the Plinths construction.
Today - I use a Wood Board as a Single 25mm Thick Board produced from a material referred to as a Resin Impregnated Densified Wood Board.
The Densified Wood Brand I use for Plinth Materials is Panzerholz.
I also use Densified Wood as the Brand P'holz and Permali as the Sub Plinth Material.
Most recently I have a TT Design Produced where the above DD TT is now removed rom its OEM Chassis and is embedded into a P'holz Plinth/Chassis. The TT's on board electronics and off board Power Supply are both new designs incorporated in their own casing.
Tonearm - My Tonearm in use today is a redesign of an Older Generation Tonearm. My version has Modern Materials added to be extremely stable when in use and are able to machined to extremely tight tolerances at interfaces, creating the very very low Coefficient of Friction. Tonearm Wiring is also selected to have the least impact on the Wands Travel across the Album.
I have been instrumental in encouraging further investigations into this Tonearm and today there are changes to be added with ideas proven to be quite effective when a method to employ them has been discovered and thoroughly trialled.
Cartridge - I have never Spent Big on a MC Cartridge, but today am using a Bespoke Built Cartridge that incorporates parts that belong to much more expensive Cart's in the Brands range of models. In conjunction with this I have a Cantilever and Stylus assed that the Company has no history of having used.
This Cart' has been compared using the same TT > TA > System to more Upper Range and much more expensive Cart's from the Company, than I paid for my Cart' to be produced.
The outcome of Comparisons does not show my Cart' is anything less, but it does behave more like a distant relative, and not owning the Family Sound as an obvious trait when closer related Cart' models are used.
Phonostage - My First Interest in Phon' Quality was manifesting in the 90's, when my first Commission Built Phon' was produced as a SS Phon'.
This Phon' made a profound impact on me an triggered a intention to experience Phon's. To date, I have travelled quite few Thousand Miles by Road and Train to experience Phon's in use. The Qty of Phon's having been auditioned is unknown to me now, bit including the large commercials shows during the 90's and 00's along with visiting dealerships, forum events and homes, I can be up in the 100's.
During this time I have added SS and Valve Phon's and in the very near future a Bespoke Commission Built SS Phon' will be ready for me to receive.
The Total commission built Phon's to date is Four, being a 90's SS - pre Covid Valve / SS Hybrid - post Covid Vale Input / Output ( Off which I had a influence over the end design for my own - Soon to be supplied SS ( Probably my last spend on a design for a Phon' ) , but mote Phon's will be encountered, it is my thing to do this.
As I get out and about and loan audio equipment, especially the Analogue Source for short term demo's or extended loans, what does all the above inform me.
In my system in my dedicated listening space and the treatment the Space has ben subjected to, for the intent to improve how sound energy interacts within the space.
I have produced a Analogue Source and Downstream Supporting Ancillary that works very very well for me.
Take the Analogue source to an alternate listening environment and audio system, when in certain homes to my ears the Analogue Source can be recognised as being mediocre as a performer.
The upside being when demo'd in certain homes, the Analogue Source inclusive of certain Phon's has been instrumental in encouraging others to rethink their own set up and shortly after making inroads into mimicking what has been encountered.
Technics SP 10 Mk II's and the SP10 R are now within my local HiFi Group as exchanged TT's.
One system has my Tonearm in use with a Mk II and one System has a version of my Valve Input / Output Phon' in use with a SP 10R.
A owner who received a demo' of my Analogue Source, who owned a SME Model 20 > V Tonearm moved on their set up as well, as the owner decided he was now aware of deficiencies with the set up.
|
For me, the most consistent difference between home audio and real life is dynamics. The most convincing demonstration of that was having a sax played live in my listening room, with the musician standing between the speakers. Wow!
|
@gbmcleod all this comparison with live music is ultimately a fantasy. We all know live is so far in a different realm than reproduced music. Forget live, even a direct from microphone is so much more laden with information and dynamics that most “recordings” don’t have. What’s not in the source material, why ask for it or compare it with imaginary things? Understanding music is a child’s play. Even a kid gets it when music is good and playing good on a system. As audiophiles we get some additional exposure so we can quickly identify unnatural sounds. That’s all. Those who can’t do that, is because they have gone too far into audiophile music audiophile way of listening (dissecting sounds).
@theophile Coming back to phonostages. I think it is the next most important component after a TT. If the TT is good, a $500 cartridge with a Rega arm into a top class phono will sound superb. But if the phono is poor cheapo, a $5000 cartridge into a $10000 tonearm is gonna sound average. It is after all amplifying the signal at the source by 1000 times. We so easily discard it’s importance
|
"Understanding music is a child’s play." Please explain what you mean, if you don’t. mind.
And,maybe it’s a fantasy to you, but I don’t see any reason you can’t go to a symphony hall, and listen to music. There must be at least 200 in the United States and nobody is forcing you to go hear amplified music unless you pick the wrong venue, which would mean it’s not a symphony hall. Are there no symphony halls where you live?
As for Harry‘s ‘snobbery,’ you are very far off base. Since Harry’s not aroundm I, one of his friends, will step in for him, given I know the "mission statement" of the magazine.
Harry was quite specific about the records he played for evaluation, why he used them, what could be heard and what was audible, but not totally clear and then the subtleties (aka: the "magiks" of the component). Why would you think that this was snobbery? That is a writer’s job, not simply to talk about the bass, the midrange, the treble, but also if it reproduced dotted 1/8 notes cleanly or a Baroque "run" without smudging the instruments. Or, can the component separate out the cellos from the double bass if they are playing in the same key.
If I described the Kirov Orchestra and how they sounded in the hall in Carnegie, and how the left side sounded different from the right side and I’m doing that as an evaluation, where’s the snobbery? Do you think that acousticians also didn’t listen to an orchestra in that space while designing???
The point of The Absolute Sound was exactly what the title was: the sound of acoustic instruments in an unamplified acoustic space. And that was put out in issue one, so there was no change in what the magazine’s mission was, and what the reviewing requirements were. And as far as your statement about all kids knowing when music is good, I don’t see that at all. The places I do see it are cello and piano recitals. But I don’t see that in the general public. I just read about people liking what they like and not paying much attention to the recording quality.
Live music does sound different than recorded music, but recorded music picks up a hell of a lot of what happened on that stage when they were recording. And that is what we are trying to retrieve. But I will also say that a Yamaha flute being played in the symphony Orchestra sounds like a Yamaha flute, no matter what Hall it’s in, so don’t insist that everything sounds different simply because the hall is different or you’re sitting in a different section. For those of us who go to symphony concerts every month, we know what the hall sounds like, we know where the best acoustics are. (I have often changed my seat at intermission, just to sit somewhere else and hear what the music sounds like at a different point in the Hall). And even then, I’m gonna ask you exactly which halls you’re talking about because I’ve been in a few. I'd like to know which ones you've been to; maybe I'd want to go hear a symphony thgere! And I can always tell when they have a Bosendorfer piano in there, or a Steinway or whatever brand. It’s not hard to differentiate instruments when you play them yourself. The problem is, from what I’ve observed, most people are extremely unknowledgeable about the school of music (and musicians) except for the overproduced stuff that they listen to routinely. What they listen to is usually not acoustic, so they won’t hear as much of what the designed designed into the equipment, since most designers use acoustic music to fine tune their designs.
|
@pani you say
"Coming back to phonostages. I think it is the next most important component after a TT. If the TT is good, a $500 cartridge with a Rega arm into a top class phono will sound superb. But if the phono is poor cheapo, a $5000 cartridge into a $10000 tonearm is gonna sound average. It is after all amplifying the signal at the source by 1000 times. We so easily discard it’s importance"
If it is to be amplified 1,000 times, it is important to get the source signal right in the first place as any imperfections such as noise, distortion and interference will also be magnified.
|
@gbmcleod
We can't improve on what's on the record. What you may or may not be hearing in the concert hall is irrelevant to this.
|
@newton_john i am not suggesting a high end phono can cure a poorly setup distorting TT system. I am merely saying dollar to dollar, a cheaper cart and a rega arm on a high end TT will sound much better than a high end cart and tonearm through a basic phono. That’s why i place phono as the 2nd most important component in the analog chain.
I know people who would use a VPI + Lyra on $500 phono. For them phono is just an additional box that needs to be there. Their logic is cartridge is doing all the work, phono can be anything. They are lost forever.
|
@pani
That's no reason to privilege the phono stage. Replacing any component with a "poor cheapo" item will spoil the sound.
|
all this comparison with live music is ultimately a fantasy. We all know live is so far in a different realm than reproduced music. Forget live, even a direct from microphone is so much more laden with information and dynamics that most “recordings” don’t have.
@pani For reference I use an LP I recorded, which is a live recording. No compression or limiting of any kind was used in the tape machine or the LP mastering, which was done directly from the master tape.
Since I was there I know how this recording (Canto General) is supposed to sound.
So- not a fantasy. You just need to get out there and do it.
|
|
@atmasphere for once I don’t feel the need for a live music uncompressed recording to tell which equipment sounds more correct. And most of us anyway don’t have access to such recordings. 99% of our listening is based on a general studio mastered recording. At max we look for a well mastered recording if available.
I don’t need to listen to Knopfler live to tell which system is sounding more natural. It’s a simple thing. The best hifi is after all the one which reproduces the source well. It is not about creating additional effects which isn’t in the recording. The word we are looking for is probably “natural”, not “live”
|
A Cheaper Cartridge from a Range of Cartridges, with a time put into getting the Stylus on the money Zenith, Azimuth and the SRA to ones own preference, even used on a well used Vinyl, but quite clean is a difficult set up to better.
A TOTR Cartridge with failing in the Stylus alignment, especially the Zenith, will struggle to impress with Parity to the above, when used on the Same Analogue Source, Same Tonearm and Headshell, Same Support Structure and Mounting for the Analogue Source, Same Audio System Amplifying / Adding Gain to the produced signal, Same Speakers to produce the End Sound, Same Listening Environment.
Keeping all things even for the Comparison the better aligned Stylus wins hand down any time as the most attractive end sound and the wanting of the End Sound to be kept.
I once heard a Cart' bought for a few hundred GBP as a Donor Model to be refurbished. The Cart' was purchased with a guestimate of over 1000 hours of usage when bought and approx' 1500 hours when demo'd.
The Cart' had extensive investigation to the Stylus set up, when compared to very well aligned much more expensive Cart' from the same Brand, the Donor Model Cart' was so much more attractive to listen to.
I informed my friend their new modifications to the Tonearm they produce, and the time spent on the Cart' Alignment, may have just shown that a Spent Cart' is actually a Cart' that is something quite special. Said Cart' remained in use once reintroduced for the rest of the session.
No Doubt Swapping Out a Phonostage will have created a difference to a End Sound produced. Would the Swap have evened up the differences discerned between Cart's? I think not, but as the Phon' Swap did not occur, I can't say for sure.
|
for once I don’t feel the need for a live music uncompressed recording to tell which equipment sounds more correct.
all this comparison with live music is ultimately a fantasy.
@pani I don't see these two statements squaring with each other. I'm not saying someone else might see them saying the same thing. But for me I want the system to sound as real as possible.
|
@atmasphere who wouldn’t want a real (I call it natural) sounding system? But it doesn’t require a live uncompressed unfiltered direct to disc recording to figure if the system sounds natural or not
|
@pani Just for the record (if you see what I did there) I was not making that claim. Just my means of reference, so as to avoid the 'fantasy' (as you put it) of live vs recorded.
|
There are way too many factors to be included to be able to accept that an individual who has a experience of a Live Performance, be it Acoustic Produced Sound or a Sound from Amplifier and Speaker is able to accurately recollect and compare the experience, when the same Music is to be encountered as a result of it being reproduced as a End Sound from a Medium that has recorded music data embedded.
The Timeline between experiencing both types of End Sound, really does bring to the forefront the unique mental condition of the listener. It is impossible to believe they have maintained the same mindset during the period of delay.
It is impossible to suggest they are responding to each End Sound Produced with the same interest.
Mood is a very strong influencer on how sound is perceived as a stimulation and how Value is awarded to the Sound being encountered.
Encounter a Live Event, along with the excitement and anticipation that is usually present, and experience this during the early hours of the evening and stay with the encounter to the later part of the night.
If the opportunity was realised to revisit the same Music as a recorded material a few hours later. Conjecture strongly suggests that fatigue and other influences like sobering up or tiredness or any other, will certainly make the extended period of being in ear shot of the Sound a more enduring / challenging experience.
In most cases if a Live Recording was to appear of a Event that has been experienced live, it can be months before the Live Recording becomes available to be producing and End Sound in a listening space. Is it fair to suggest the individual now listening to the recorded version of the event, is able to accurately compare the End Sound from both experiences had.
|
Every thing was built in the Receviers we bought back then...you didn't have to worry about it ,it sounded find...I never realized it until I had bought an older receiver that didn't have one built it...wfh is with this ...i wasn't getting any volume, hmmmmm....I found out the hard way...lol
|
