Into the Future

[Digi&Analog Fan]

Re-arranging and mis-quoting someone's words in an attempt to make their words sound ridiculous has been tried before. Even outside of politics;  it seems. I said that Andy Singer in an online interview said that the Snell Type A III was "one of the best speakers of all time." NOT that they were THE BEST THING EVER as you state was said, which a quick look back would prove to be a deception.. If there weren't many exceptional products of the past I doubt if guys with "real ears" like Nelson Pass and others would be shelling out big bucks for vintage greats of the past. Do you think your average speaker of today has even one half of the openness, transparency, purity and naturalness of the original Quad 57 speaker from 1957?  Harry Pearson of The Absolute Sound said that after a close comparison that the Quad 57, within its limits, sounded more like music than the much more recent over $100,00 Infinity IRS speaker. So its not that there hasn't been much progress; its more that there are a lot of vintage products that are, as Panasonics old slogan, "slightly ahead of our time." Actually more than "slightly". There has been nice progress in speaker driver technology and the drivers in many modern speakers are a far cry from the drivers the "average" speakers of many decades ago used. But there were "above average" speakers back then; which are easily still good speakers today. You mentioned Thorens and an older Thorens turntable. That table used steel in places that more modern Thorens tables used cheaper more compromised materials which are more cost saving. That vintage table is not a turntable one buys for nostalgia only, its bought for great design, materials and sound, when many companies went all out, regardless of cost. The cost of shipping weighty items from both overseas and domestically, was only a smidgen of shipping costs today, and that also is a BIG factor in how something is built and what it is built with. The original owner of Thorens, if he is still alive, was known to have 1969 KLH model 9 electrostatics as his speakers of choice ( he has 4 of them). What about the Marantz model 9 (amps) from the early 1960s (or before)? Do you think those would be far outclassed by modern technology? They go for $25,000 and more, and are bought by knowledgeable audiophiles, who know their sound quality and what music sounds like. Overall much of today's equipment is more advanced and sounds a lot better in certain ways at least, but a lot of the equipment that was great equipment back then is still great equipment today. 

[Digi&Analog Fan]

Once again, you tried to slip one in there, that simply wasn't ever said. I never said there hasn't been considerable progress in audio. That there were wonderful examples of great equipment from the past, doesn't mean that at all. Is a 1977 Rolls Royce Silver Shadow a piece of junk compared to a Hyundai, because the Hyundai was built more recently?  Hint: the Rolls is built worlds better and rides better and is quieter, despite being built in less "advanced" times. When barreling down the road the clock is supposed to be the loudest noise you hear.  I suppose the Quad 57 isn't built anymore because I suppose its like anything else. Its near record breaking number of years in production has run its course. I cannot think of too many things that haven't run there course long before that long a span; except the Klipschorn, which is meant to be placed in a corner. The Quads wide physical profile with its slanted legs and its decidedly 1950s look, ( no longer in style) were considerations too. Around 1981 or so they replaced the model after an incredibly long run with the Quad 63, which many people commented didn't have the midrange magic or clarity of the original, despite a few other pluses. That's the 1st time I've heard someone try to use as an argument that "if its so good, why don't they make it anymore" concerning a product that was made for around two decades and a half and that is considered the single most influential speaker of all time. Things are not nearly as "simple" as that.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

It didn't' feel like work at all making mincemeat out of the absurdly silly logic of someone picking on Quad 57's. It tops virtually every list of most influential audio product ever. DUDE?

[Digi&Analog Fan]

Some equip. from way back when like Quad 57, Marantz tube equip., KLH 9's, some Tannoy, even some Heath are way better than most equipment of today. Which is not to say that someone who is rich enough or someone into frittering away their money couldn't fritter away enough of it to beat equipment like that in at least some ways. I hear the Quads are still very hard to beat for natural sounding clarity and believability and Don't knock the Marantz model 9 amps; they are truly something special; even to this day. Even vintage Large Advents. I remember a local salon had a used pair always hooked up, (he was keeping them) and he liked to do a little thing where people would bring in their much more up to date, more expensive and supposedly advanced speakers, and when switching back and forth the Advents made virtually every one of them sound very nasal in the midrange. 

 

 Once again, I never said all or most vintage equipment beats the sound quality of current equipment. I don't recall anyone ever thinking or saying Dynaco was the best equipment. You bought it if you couldn't afford Marantz. But for the equivalent of $200 today adjusted for inflation, you would be surprised how it would run up and down stuff that costs $200 today, if there still is any halfway serious equipment at that price.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

Re: the post a few up. I haven't compared vintage Dynaco amps to more modern inexpensive offerings (By inexpensive, I assume you mean unfamiliar Chinese brands advertised mainly on ebay). Like I say I can't comment, but once again most people have not heard all their different vintage amps and certainly they haven't heard all their vintage modification jobs done by many different people on Dynaco's. Their best power amp was actually their lowest powered amp the ST35, which came later and had better advanced transformers, and could teach some of their higher powered amps a lesson in naturalness and sweetness. They had surprising bass punch also.

 

 Most vintage speakers (pre 1975) had lesser drivers (quality wise) than good modern speakers. They also could have used some cabinet bracing. However almost all of them were designed to have an honest flat frequency response, and the little peak here and a little peak there, to spotlight clarity, was not nearly as common as it is today. They also had generous bass and warmth and I cannot recall one vintage speaker (except the ridiculously cheap) that ever sounded thin, which today is not an uncommon problem at all. For generally cleaner sounding drivers I usually prefer modern speakers; but not always, on the overall sound.

 

 One of the two major U.S. high end magazines did an interesting group comparison review, years ago. They compared a combination of vintage and non vintage preamps and in their comparisons tried to pick the favorites. On the solid state side was Spectral, Perreaux, Nova JFet, (a Robert E. Green reference for years). On the tube side was an updated Marantz 7 tube preamp, a Conrad Johnson preamp and something else?. The Conrad Johnson ( don't recall model) was the one they seemed to prefer by a slight margin over the vintage early 1960ish Marantz 7 design. Amazing how many people after decades of frequent upgrading, end up with Conrad Johnson as their final stage equipment. 

[Digi&Analog Fan]

Yeah. I saw some video reviews of some of these amps, but by cheap I thought you meant really cheap.  An old acquaintance of mine said he remembered Dynakit tube amp kits being closed out on sale for $35 back in the 1960s. That would be only a few hundred dollars now. I will re-visit my ST-35 some day. The last time I heard it, I thought it didn't have that purity which tickles you on every note, that I like, but smooth tonally and what a sense of space, and I couldn't get over how it had more bass punch with less than 20 tube Watts per channel than the over 100 watt per channel transistor amp I had just removed.

 

 I can't say I spent much time listening to the Thorens 124 turntable, but I have heared their   model 125 many times and it sounded great. He was using an SME arm and a Shure V15 V MR cartridge. The 124 if I'm correct is supposed to be better than the model 125. 

 

 I just think that there were some really good designers back in the last quarter of the last century. I don't think IQ's have particularly gotten better since then. I think a lot of things are considered better from back then. Ask 10 experienced tube rollers what's generally better sounding, new tubes or vintage 1950's/60's tubes and 9 out of 10 will tell you vintage, without a doubt. Music was certainly better in the 1960s and 1970s. It's probably gotten worse with each succeeding decade. TV shows were certainly more creative and clever with better plots, and actors with much more characater. I think things overall were more intelligent and creative and better done with much better standards and taste. At least some audio equipment from that era exemplifies this. They might not have had some of the sophisticated computer analysis or materials, but they had "ears" and pride in what they put out.  

[Digi&Analog Fan]

First how about pointing out where I supposedly said that yesterdays equipment was better than current gear. I said "certain" equipment from long ago is still better than most of today's equipment, like Quad 57, KLH 9, etc. As I said, Harry Pearson (and everybody knows he had "ears") Harry said in print that Quad 57's within their limits sound more like music than the over $100,000 Infinity IRS, which he also owned. Let's put it this way, do you think a lot of speakers today would beat the IRS? What % of them would beat it? 10%, 1%, 0.1%. Now we might be getting a little more realistic.

 

You can sometimes see the IRS in the background if you watch P.S. Audios Paul McGowans daily videos. They even let people in to hear them. Tell him that there's a lot of speakers today that beat the IRS because the IRS is many decades old, yet alone Quad 57's.. It would bring a smile to his face and he'd motion you over to take a quick listen and it wouldn't't take long.

 

 What I do think is that adjusted for inflation a $700/PR. list price speaker of today would likely and usually beat a $200/PR. speaker from say the l970's. It would all depend on which speakers though. There would be closer calls than others. Would your average $700 list speaker of today beat something really good that cost $700 back then "not adjusted for inflation?" The answer would be much more often "no". In fact, there would be some ridiculous mis-matches I'm sure, with the best vintage speakers at that price back then. This has to do with reality, not nostalgia. Yesterdays great speakers are not today junk. Speakers of today limited in price and performanc, do not usually slay yesterdays Goliath's.  

 

 Why does this not even matter to me? Because I know what I am doing well as far as audio is concerned, and have put together a few systems for myself which image far better than anything I have ever heard at any price. I literally have palpable images on my ceiling, not just the singer in the middle, but instruments off to the extreme sides (a much tougher accomplishment). Listening to my systems you are obviously listening to a very elevated stage of musicians, with same kind of air front to back. I could not imagine my sound being any purer and cleaner sounding. I could imagine it being more extended in the bass, but out of choice I chose a sound like that, that isn't bass heavy and has too much warmth which causes murkiness in the midrange and decreases apparent transparency. I think its the thing to do. Also it is a known psych-acoustical fact that the absence of the lowest bass makes the mid and upper bass more intelligible, from the lack of booming lower down. This is the kind of sound I have always been after. Changing it any way would be like a nightmare to me, and I put this system together by using mostly select vintage equipment, bought used and modified with really great modern cables. I play several instruments and know their sound intimately and it gets their harmonic overtone structure just right. I have acoustics knowleedge also and have applied it to both listening rooms. People who have spent $80,000 on their stereo hear mine and feel dumb and sick and go away confused. Its possible to get my kind of sound without breaking the bank; if you're good. I'm happy, and happy for all the things I've learned through decades of experimentation. I would only have nostalgia for equipment that I had previously owned, if it bettered what I have nnw. Why would anyone have so called "nostalgia" for equipment they've never owned?

 

 

[Digi&Analog Fan]

Frank Van Alstine's turntable is supposedly a Harman Kardon T-25. From 1980s. Vintage but good.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

If I remember correctly, Paul McGowans numbers show he has more video followers than just about anyone else; probably multitudes of people from on here too. He helps a lot of people understand things concerning audio. He's nice enough to answer a lot of peoples questions from around the world, and he's very successfull, lives a great full life and doesn't have to worry where his next ten million is coming from.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

I remember years ago, it taking many months to get my PS preamp back from factory servicing. I had to listen to my tape deck connected directly to my power amp for a long time. It was Winter (and then Spring).

[Digi&Analog Fan]

Technicalities aside, I wonder how important some of those things are if someone would play cds like that on equipment that truly adds nothing objectionable of its own to the sound. Or those who go to the effort of a pre-play ritual like audiophiles, before they actually lower the stylus onto a piece of vinyl. Years ago it used to be that it was rare when I liked the sound of a CD; now its rare when I don't like the sound of a CD. At least fairly rare. There's a couple handfuls of things that improve the sound between 6 to 8% each. It adds up to a new listening experience. In the end, distortion of some sort usualay turns out to be the culprit.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

I can think of a guy who wouldn't even think of having his CD payer in the same room as vibration producing loudspeakers. He has a  long interconnect carefully going from his amplifier, out his window to his CD player situated and isolated on his porch. Whenever he wants to put on a new CD, he comes out his door and walks across his porch to his CD player and puts another selection on. 

 

 Right before he had a company install an iron gate, he had an UN-Welcome mat at the foot of his porch steps which read "Make like a tree and leave." I think it glowed in the dark too. Worst conditions: wind gusts; especially from the NW. Thinking outside the box (a house is sort of a box).  TDTS stands for total dedication to sound.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

The guy I wrote about earlier, who sets up his CD player outside on his porch for isolation, I found outside doing some grilling. With all the smoke generated. I didn't even have to ask; the CD player was fully covered by a small tarp. He agreed to do an interview. This is Part 1.

 

Digi:  Thanks for agreeing to this interview. You have some barbecue sauce on your nose... It looks like you got it now. I mentioned in a post this morning your radical strategy of CD player porch isolation.

 

Larry: I couldnn't imagine anyone having their CD player in the same room with all that boomin' and bangiin' their speakers makes going on. Especially those ones that have, like $40,000 systems. They gotta be crazy!

 

Digi: That is crazy, if you think about it. I see you have your CD player all covered up to protect it from all the barbecue smoke. May I ?

 

Larry: Go ahead.

 

Digi: Thanks it really tastes good.

 

Larry: OH...I thought you meant you were gonna uncover the CD player. I'd appreciate you staying off the rest of them. I like to have leftovers. 

 

Digi: I really like barbecue chicken. Now that my fingers have sauce all over them, could you uncover the player?.. Thanks. I see you have a huge round object under the player. It looks really sturdy. What is that?

 

Larry: Those are from Ringling Bros. I am a retired clown. Retired 15 years ago. Those are them things that the elephants used to stand straight up on using only their hind legs. 

 

Digi:  What a great idea for a footer! Those elephants must weigh thousands of pounds.

 

Larry: They weigh more than the fat lady, that's for sure. I have another one inside the house underneath my amps. 

 

Digi: Do you have floorstanding speakers?

 

Larry: Oh no no! I have open baffle speakers. They hang down from the ceiling. Like a trapeze.

 

Digi:  Interesting. So they don't shake the floor with vibration.

 

Larry:  You got the idea. But they do shake the ceiling a bit from where they're attached, and the ceiling is connected to the side walls and those are connected to the floor. Not as critical though.

 

Digi:  Those do look trapeze like. Do they have a net underneath? Just kidding.

 

Larry:  Only the "internet". I do me some streaming as well. As far as I know I'm the only "clown audiophile".

 

Digi:  There are some people who would disagree with you on that one, but what does the only "retired clown" audiophile listen to?

 

Larry:  From 35 years with the circus I developed a fondness for Sousa marches and his various music. I also like jazz and blues. Just last night I was listening to some "Cannonball" Adderly and Eddie "Lockjaw" Davis.

 

Digi:  You mentiioned The Blues. They say behind every great comic there is pain, suffering and darkness. Is that the way it is with clowns too? Underneath? Beneath the surface?

 

Larry: Well uh..I don't know about that, but I guess I've seen people happier than me. I'm just happy to have retired my shoes after all those years. I use them as a doorstop behind the door. I only need the door to open about 13 inches.

 

Digi:  You mentioned Cannonball Adderly. Did you know The Human Cannonball?

 

Larry:  Oh yeah, we were like this, (twisting his index and third fingers together). Too bad he got too daring one day. After being shot out of a damn cannon so many thousands of times and surviving intact, one day he went up to the guy that stuck his head in the lions mouth. He didn't consider him a real daredevil like himself, and didn't take the man seriously. The lions were tame he knew. He looked at him like a placekicker in football, not a real meat and bones performer. He considered him a creampuff and would razz him about it. One time, after the guy pulled his head out of the lions mouth, The Human Cannonball said sarcastically " Oh how daring, let me try that."  The Human Cannonball put his head inside the lions mouth. Earlier that morning Cannonball got a haircut and the barber must have powdered his head up pretty good. He put his head deep in the lions mouth and the powder must have made the lion have a sudden and violent  sneeze. The lion didn't mean to do it, and had an expression of sympathy for a long while, until it was feeding time.

 

Digi: Wow;  you mentioned The Fat Lady. There's an old saying that it's not over till The Fat Lady sings, but I guess that's another fat lady. Do you ever listen to any opera?

 

Larry:  Yeah, no class to our circus Fat Lady at all though. If you didn't accept one of her advances, she'd hold it against you for life. We didn't razz her bout her weight too often though. She made good friends with the sword swallower, and you always had to watch him, he could be dangerous too. 

 

Digi:  There was a really good unique song about circus life on Bruce Springsteens album, The Wild The Innocent & The East Street Shuffle back around 1974. Did you ever hear it?

 

Larry:  No, can't say I have ever heard that one. I was busy. In 1974 my clown career was in full bloom. 

 

To be continued.....

 

 

 

[Digi&Analog Fan]

Re: SJK. I guess according to your thoughts no one on here has CD sound as good as your sound. Lets bow to the king. You have proven many times foolishly that you are not the logic king.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

PART 2 OF INTERVIEW WITH RETIRED CLOWN AUDIOPHILE.

 

 This all happened yesterday and I am going from my notes. Will have to space this out because of time demands.

 

DIGI:  As I recall the song is the last track on side one. There's a line where he sings "God save the human cannonball."

 

LARRY:  That's really fitting. That's nice. Maybe he's looking down on us right now.

 

DIGI:  Your sound is really very realistic. I think it was reallysmart to let your speakers hang down so that they aren't too close to the ceiling, as they could pick up coloration and earl reflections from there too. You are only the third audiophile whose system I have been impressed with out of all the systems I've heard. 95% of the time its like "I can't believe they have such supposedly great equipment and the sound is so ordinary." I didn't know such highly touted equipment could sound so ordinary. Like a joke, really. 

 

Larry:  Yeah, they don't know how to set up or isolate or synergize or acousticize. Is that a word?

 

DIGI:  I think you're right. I know there might be the word Acousticity. There is a David Grisman album by that name. He's a great Jazz mandolin player. Do you practice social distancing?

 

LARRY: It's mostly my CD player on the porch that's social distancing and isolating. I wear a mask when I think its needed though.

 

DIGI:  I think a lot of people just put some cones or something under their equipment and figure that'll do er. They don't bother to try anything extreme to see how much their missing. Or sorbothene, some people think that stuff is God and problem solved.

 

LARRY:  Doing things that way is like walking into an alligator swamp with spray repellent or defending yourself against a wild ape with a popsicle stick. 

 

DIGI:  Between circus shows was there much music going on amongst performers in their spare time?

 

LARRY:  Some. A lot of people had harmonicas, one guy had a kazoo. One big shoe thought it was funny to go into a quiet library and all of a sudden make sounds with his slide whistle undercover behind the stacks.

 

[Digi&Analog Fan]

Maybe it was a slight sarcasm to say "bow to the king" after he first suggested that I and everyone else on here throw our CD players out the window if we are truly dedicated to sound and the only way to listen is the way he listens. I do respect that the forum tries to be non combative. You can hardly look at a thread on Audiogon without someone at someone else's throat. 

 

 The thing I like about CD players is that I know that however good my sound is now, its the greatest bet in the world that my sound will be even better next month, and the month after that, and the month after that etc. because there's never a month goes by without me getting some creative ideas how to make it sound better. Would that happen with files etc?

[Digi&Analog Fan]

That could be useful info if I ever try that route in the future. I am always modding my CD players, including the analog stage. When I take a CD player to a high end shop and have them hook it up to hear an amp or speakers, they always want to look inside my player after. My ideas are in there though. I once told a dealer if you let me take out the midrange driver of that over $100,000 speaker (very well known high end brand) and let me see the driver make and model on back of the magnet, I'll let you look inside my CD player. The midrange was a $260 driver, from a European driver manufacturer which also makes a $400, $600, $800, $1,000, $1,200  driver and those even higher up. If this company is the rule rather than the exception, then what's inside is a shortchange too, for the fortune that someone foolish enough gives them.

[Digi&Analog Fan]

Its extremely "bizzare" to be attacked by the owner of a forum for simply stating my personal experience. I never said I was smarter than all or any manufacturers. There are certain things that manufacturers do not bother to do inside their products that would be too labor intensive that I know how to do, and can implement and improve upon. And yes, in my decades of experiments I'm sure I have learned some things that very few if any have also discovered. When a worthwhile, creative, funny, knowledgeable interesting person joins your mostly rather boring forum, do you harass them instead of being ggrateful? Do you think it would be a traumatic experience or just awful to be removed from a forum like this? What is your IQ? By the way the ultra expensive speaker brand I was talking about is one that I am sure you personally and intimately know.