Actually the Rega was Acos Rega before that. Then Rega Planet. My motorcycle was DBW 222R. I think it was bough Aug 76 as it was new registration month. I would guess some dealers were active a year before. I remember as it was beautiful weather and I went to Rega to run it in. I seem to remember Acos Rega was in the 1974 year book. Rega is Roy Gandy and Tony Ralph ( or Relph ). Mrs Ralph was nearing 90 and was the best at setting the motors. It is not easy although looks simple. Funnily Mr Ackeman's sister the same age did the SME nylon bias weight threads!
No, the valiant attempt was me trying to beat the Rega. I succeeded with a few people who had open minds. I also sold SME 3 arms with TD 160. This arm is often a bargain secondhand. It is surprisingly good.
However you make a good point I hadn't intended. Although I wasn't directly linked with TD160 S I did talk to them a lot . They knew of my open plinth and rubber door stops and removing the foam spring dampers. I suspect it was people like me who forgot the politics and listened who had it made? Thorens UK said Mr Trehorn of UK side designed TD160 S. My German Thorens friends have never heard of him. All I can think is he only dealt with the top level at Thorens so staff weren't told. I think Jimmy Hugues might have been involved at KJ in London. Jimmy taught me how to set up Linn's. A very good teacher.
I know nothing of Phonophosy ( spelling? ) . They did special things also.
42.
Persist grasshopper.
Find the correlations, then you can predict...'proper' explanation is another subject.
Dan.
Dan, my apologies, totally forgot to post the link to your request.
(short term après-fridge effects?)
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/200865-sound-quality-vs-measurements-332.html#post4084909
Thanks, got it now.
500 pages...I have some reading to do.
Free ebooks - Project Gutenberg and Project Gutenberg Australia are wonderful resources for old books, and free.
Australian Explorers and Exploration and Explorers Journals are of particular interest to Aussies.
Dan.
Correlations ...
Predictions ...
Explanations ...
- but IMO mostly fall in the realm of material behaviours effectively creating electrical interference, and the components then being too susceptible to that interference.BTW, how's the 'gizmo'? Last round was going to be an attempt at doin' "measurement" - did that go anywhere ...?
As I am in the mood for trying things got out my digital vinyl. Most sound more believable than CD of the same. Did anyone think they lack dynamic range ? Badly so I would say. Other than that not bad. DGG Bernstein for example. Rather beautiful but most of the orchestra hidden in fog. If asked I would say only half the range of a 1952 Decca FFRR I was listening to. That one gives the illusion of stereo as it has so much detail. FFRR was the old FFRR78 with new lathe feed screw and micro groove cutting stylus. FFRR is not quite RIAA. Close enough. I have heard that record in FFRR, it is considerably better. It sounds much more modern when correct. It sounds great even in RIAA.
That would be true if always there. The fog is a lack of density. It's there but it isn't there. It's what a friend said on CD day one ( first ever Sony ). " It's absolutely perfect , it's all there. Only one problem . Why is the orchestra only 2 inches deep " ? " Apart from that it's perfect " He was being ironic.
That was Sony CDP101 ( maybe that's right ) Creek CAS4040 and Heybrook HB1. As it turned out rather good as the Creek was a direct input via the volume control and was far from being a bad way of doing it. Mostly CD sounded much worse after that as recordings were churned out and players came down in price. My first OK CD player was Denon DCD300, a time share 16 bit output with time delay correction. I thought it sounded excellent and suspect it still would. Incisive and no obvious faults. Naim was better as was Quad 67 using Crystal 20 bit. Not much else was except Meridian ( which I didn't sell ). Rotel RCD 965 was OK.
That was Sony CDP101 ( maybe that's right ) Creek CAS4040 and Heybrook HB1. As it turned out rather good as the Creek was a direct input via the volume control and was far from being a bad way of doing it. Mostly CD sounded much worse after that as recordings were churned out and players came down in price. My first OK CD player was Denon DCD300, a time share 16 bit output with time delay correction. I thought it sounded excellent and suspect it still would. Incisive and no obvious faults. Naim was better as was Quad 67 using Crystal 20 bit. Not much else was except Meridian ( which I didn't sell ). Rotel RCD 965 was OK.
Digital progress.
My son has just built for me a new computer using Windows 8. I would have liked to use XP but found the new devices will not support it. The old computer is being stripped to the bare minimum and will use XP. The idea is to have the things I need most in both. The old as a back up.
Then the big surprise. I thanked my son for upgrading the graphics card as the resolution is far better on photos I took and know well. Looking astonished he said in theory not better. Whatever the reason it is not subtle. It is the opposite of the digital LPs. It's all the half tones and shades. He did say using WaterFox as 64 bit. I don't know if that could be part of it ? Windows 8 is growing on me. Not instantly familiar to an XP user. Mac and Linux if anything are more familiar. In both cases I have used computers with those and figured it out quickly. 8 had me troubled, I had to be shown. It took 5 minutes so where's the problem I guess?
My son has just built for me a new computer using Windows 8. I would have liked to use XP but found the new devices will not support it. The old computer is being stripped to the bare minimum and will use XP. The idea is to have the things I need most in both. The old as a back up.
Then the big surprise. I thanked my son for upgrading the graphics card as the resolution is far better on photos I took and know well. Looking astonished he said in theory not better. Whatever the reason it is not subtle. It is the opposite of the digital LPs. It's all the half tones and shades. He did say using WaterFox as 64 bit. I don't know if that could be part of it ? Windows 8 is growing on me. Not instantly familiar to an XP user. Mac and Linux if anything are more familiar. In both cases I have used computers with those and figured it out quickly. 8 had me troubled, I had to be shown. It took 5 minutes so where's the problem I guess?
OK, lack of density makes sense, a typical flaw in digital playback, especially in the "old days"; this is because the designers didn't have a handle on what was important to get right, versus measuring "per specs". And still is an issue to this day, to a far degree - one will get quite a shock I would imagine when the CD replay snaps into 'correctness' - you go from "fog" to overwhelming, rich detail that stretches for miles, so to speak, . The problem is that relatively few know how to "get it", hence all the negativity about digital over the years ...
. The problem is that relatively few know how to "get it", hence all the negativity about digital over the years ..."Digital progress".
You know, Nige, progress as such seems to be as flexible as an overused chewing gum these days. For one thing, people tend to take it for granted that progress by definition means better, which is not always so. The learning curve seems to have been relegated to the junk pile, nobody seems to take it into account any more. Today, "progress" seems to mean not so much an advance as better marektability.
Remember that Sony's Beta beat JVC's VHS by a mile, and Philips/Grundig's System 2000 was even better - yet the worst of them took over the market and became a de facto standard everywhere, except in stuios, simply bvecause it was the cheapest to make.
Look at CD. Play a well rcorded CD from 1986-1990 and you'll find that many were then much better sounding than the brand new ones, and compare that with the general advance of digital circuits from then to now. Vast, to say the least. Yet, the sound we hear has taken a turn for the worse, despite everything.
And the Hi Res formats, where are they? Nowhere really, they are still very much on the fringe of events, when they should be ruling supreme.
So, here we are, discussing at length a format which was expecetd to die off really fast, yet it clings on, and worse for the new formats, it still seems to actually sound better overall, despite the complications in between.
I for one was afraid of just this, which is why I have kept my trusty Dual TT, and am in fact preparing to give it a well deserved overhaul and press it back into service.
You know, Nige, progress as such seems to be as flexible as an overused chewing gum these days. For one thing, people tend to take it for granted that progress by definition means better, which is not always so. The learning curve seems to have been relegated to the junk pile, nobody seems to take it into account any more. Today, "progress" seems to mean not so much an advance as better marektability.
Remember that Sony's Beta beat JVC's VHS by a mile, and Philips/Grundig's System 2000 was even better - yet the worst of them took over the market and became a de facto standard everywhere, except in stuios, simply bvecause it was the cheapest to make.
Look at CD. Play a well rcorded CD from 1986-1990 and you'll find that many were then much better sounding than the brand new ones, and compare that with the general advance of digital circuits from then to now. Vast, to say the least. Yet, the sound we hear has taken a turn for the worse, despite everything.
And the Hi Res formats, where are they? Nowhere really, they are still very much on the fringe of events, when they should be ruling supreme.
So, here we are, discussing at length a format which was expecetd to die off really fast, yet it clings on, and worse for the new formats, it still seems to actually sound better overall, despite the complications in between.
I for one was afraid of just this, which is why I have kept my trusty Dual TT, and am in fact preparing to give it a well deserved overhaul and press it back into service.
OK, lack of density makes sense, a typical flaw in digital playback, especially in the "old days"; this is because the designers didn't have a handle on what was important to get right, versus measuring "per specs". And still is an issue to this day, to a far degree - one will get quite a shock I would imagine when the CD replay snaps into 'correctness' - you go from "fog" to overwhelming, rich detail that stretches for miles, so to speak,
In my experience, quite a few CD players can be more or less successfully upgraded (improved) by simply changing some of the key parts. Unfortunately, this is NOT a linear effect, one has to have some patience and a selection of op amps at hand and really dedicate some time to the try-and-listen process. I have seen some highly regarded op amps, such as BB 627, sound actually dreadful when installed, even if logically this should not be so.
The only linear function I have ever come across was the case of Philips/Marantz players (while Marantz was still owned by Philips). They seem exceptionally partial to extracting NJR op amps and replacing them with AD OP275. The differences are that OP 275 has a FET input rather than bipolar, it has a Butler front end versus standard differential inputs, but it is my belief that the key difference lies in the fact that NJR amps commonly used have settling times od 1,500-1,800 nS, whereas the 275 is rated at 200 nS. The end result is considerably improved resolution, more detail and much more spatial information, really MUCH more.
I did try a number of still faster op amps, but none could beat the 275. I will not pretend I know exactly why, but my ears tell me it is so. I believe it's down to the OP 275's internal architecture, which seems very well suited to audio in general. I say this because later on I was intrigued enough to try it out in other circuits and it did well to very well.
Whick leads me to believe that appearently many CD players in fact have inadequate analog solutions. No wonder some manufacturers (e.g. Harman/Kardon 730, Yamaha CDX-993, etc) chose to build discrete buffer and output stages.
OK, lack of density makes sense, a typical flaw in digital playback, especially in the "old days"; this is because the designers didn't have a handle on what was important to get right, versus measuring "per specs". And still is an issue to this day, to a far degree - one will get quite a shock I would imagine when the CD replay snaps into 'correctness' - you go from "fog" to overwhelming, rich detail that stretches for miles, so to speak,
That's exactly right. I think the point is I bought them then didn't bother to play them. My system has grown and is now tonally very beautiful. The inept use of what they had is the question. George Michael's Faith was the first CD I heard sound excellent. It was on the Denon DCD 300 single DAC 16 Bit time share. Never heard any CD player equal it since!!! That was the early days so it wasn't impossible.
The great irony is that the LP12 is the Porsche and the Thorens the Beetle. I once drove a Beetle that had all Porsche parts and bog standard big VW engine with no tuning. The car was perfection in a way the Porsche as driven by friends is not. They jump from bend to bend whilst that Beetle glided. I think the TD145 I just fettled is the same. If I am to continue using the LP12 I think I will have to use a bit of EQ tweak. I will also have correct EQ for my classical mono library also. In the past I thought non RIAA LP's were a pleasant joke. All it was is EQ. Tone controls do not correct EQ. True EQ gives focus back like spectacles do. Tone controls are like you borrowed a friends spectacles.
I have just been listening to Emil Gilels playing The Trout on 1976 DGG 2530 646. The Linn has one quality over the TD145. The people are in the room. The tonality is not quite right. Seeing as both have DL110 and it seems a highly repeatable design I have to say the LP12 is not accurate on tonality. This is well known but worth repeating. The Trout is great because the Linn colouration is like a 1780 concert hall. Trouble is not right for modern music. I am use to turntables with more pace. I must pull my finger out and finish the ones I have. This time not lend them out.
I must investigate two transistor fully active phono stages. It is just possible they could be better. I like EF 86 single pentode ones. I have some military wire ended EF86 so perhaps that's the way with transformer MC. If I use a J FET op amp it would assist as the EF 86 will not be slugged. Then see where it goes. The EF 86 would use shunt feedback. What a shame I didn't keep some Sony mini transformers ( later Ortofon ). The were £7 inc tax trade a pair or better if I paid my bill quickly.
I have to say the LP12 reputation of making records seem noise free is still remarkable. For whatever reason it is true. Other good turntables do this. TD145 is not bad also. More obvious but divorced from the music.
If you ever Hafler decode music the noise becomes even more detached. In the past Dobly 5.1 systems when asked to do the same placed the noise right inside the listening sphere. Very unpleasant and must be doing other bad things.
Signing off with RCA Tomita Snowflakes are dancing. Wow if the LP12 ever found it place this is it. First time I ever heard it was on a Sony DD when the class D was shown . Michaelangeli on DGG if piano is a reference recording for me of the same pieces. The Sunken Cathedral is awesome in both. For a speaker that claims 55 Hz the SMGa sure has bass.
This is the start of an idea. The op amp says something needed here. As the loading effect of the tone controls was part of the original the op amp can mimic that load. Later it can be optimized. Unlike op amps these old pentode designs need to be tweaked . If you look the pentode couldn't be simpler, the g2 supply the easiest possible. This circuit could adapt to be the DAC I to V.
A transistor CCS seems worth trying. The Leak Varislope pre amp was the better sounding one I know of. The late 1940's design used twin T filters. If you buy one the output from pre out is from the anode. The horrible supplied wire is the one you need . TV coax will do. Keep it very short as even 63 pF /metre s best kept to < 0.5 metre. . The next stage ideally > 1 M. The thing is a cathode follower spoils the sound and Leak & Co were right to keep it simple. The Quad version is great on paper. Not so great in reality. I strongly dislike the Quad 2/22 due mostly to the hype around it, but also the sound. Ponderous and cute.
BTW. I have no romantic idea about using a valve. It just seems an ideal device. Very low noise and not a bad voltage to work at. I dare say a 2SA1085 ( 2SB970 ) could give it a shootout?
Last edited:
That's the power of porn.
The porn industry used VHS to distribute its content.
No porn, no sales.
The decline of sound quality is mainly due to the loudness war. Blaming it on the electronics is silly, mainly because the electronics used in pop productions is from the 70's: Neve, API, SS to name a few.
I was involved with Video, mostly Sony. VHS was mostly better than typical Beta. JVC were 100% on quality control and Sony not. We had to align a Beat very carefully to beat it. Somehow Beta being mini U - matic although a fractional lines of resolution was touted as being nearly the same as. The first VHS I ever had was still one of the best I ever saw. If the claims of Beta and VHS were set against U-matic it would be like saying frequency response 30 to 15 kHz or 50 to 13.9 kHz. Neither are 30 kHz. When I stopped using Beta it was a happy day. OK Beta might have been better if you could do the quality control ( I have all the Sony manuals somewhere ). Thing is against U-matic both were toy town devices. U-matic now seems less than great. Old studio NTSC intended machines still can be stunning. Remember NTSC is only poor over long distances. U-matics could be drooped if in the box down a flight of stairs. For could read were , after a hard recording session . They seldom broke.
Yes, Sony actively prevented (when they could) beta porn. The sticking too long to 60 min/tape didn't help either.
On your second point the pro-summer VHS like the Panasonic NV7200, used for making the early tapes at 1X speed was marginally better/equal to any beta I used. It cost a lot (~$2000 or so) but was an item of choice for videophiles. Much better mechanics and capstan speed control.
Remember tapes of movies cost $50+ and were made one at a time before they were mass produced with what was effectively the magnetic equivalent of LP stamping.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.