I have as well as a dinner at "Dick Fish", if we could arrange this I would pick up the tab.
It seems that financial success spurs mistrust and envy everywhere. Add in some fame, and mistrust becomes hate.
On the other hand, it also seems to me like financial success makes people start to do things they would otherise never do.
I have no idea what those rings are supposed to do, since the purposed is round and square at the same time. Like the "Tesla plate" was some 20 years ago - a metal plate, I thin it was aluminium, purple in colour, was supposed to make you healthier and all you had to do was to put it underneath your pillow at night. Not expensive, but this is volume scale economics, smaller profit but large number of sales.
Personally, I do not believe in myth and magic, and am therefore a lost cause for such vendours.
I must say I am rather disappointed to see such offerings from a man I though to be an honest to God manufacturer, as demonstrated by some of his products I own and have no intention of parting with. In that respect, I agree with SY.
Even if I still think some of his cables are a very good deal.
On the other hand, it also seems to me like financial success makes people start to do things they would otherise never do.
I have no idea what those rings are supposed to do, since the purposed is round and square at the same time. Like the "Tesla plate" was some 20 years ago - a metal plate, I thin it was aluminium, purple in colour, was supposed to make you healthier and all you had to do was to put it underneath your pillow at night. Not expensive, but this is volume scale economics, smaller profit but large number of sales.
Personally, I do not believe in myth and magic, and am therefore a lost cause for such vendours.
I must say I am rather disappointed to see such offerings from a man I though to be an honest to God manufacturer, as demonstrated by some of his products I own and have no intention of parting with. In that respect, I agree with SY.
Even if I still think some of his cables are a very good deal.
On a different subject, one of my tweeters gave up the ghost. No idea how and why, but I just don't have the time and place to open it up and investigate, not until I get those "#$%&/()= builders out. Not worried, I have 3 brand new spares in my cupboard.
Anyway, I quickly dropped in the AR94 speakers in their place. They still sound very clean and coherent to me, but they definitely lack the low end in compariosn. What they do have is clean and coherent, but I very much doubt they go below 50 Hz much. Nominally, my regular speakers go to 36 Hz at -3 dB, appearently not a very large difference, but it seems a crucial one.
Just to refresh your memory, AR94 were the world's first 2.5 way speakers. They have two 8" drivers, even visually different. Both work at the same time, but the lower one has an inductor in its signal path, which is supposed to limit their operation at around 80 Hz, if memory serves. It's supposed to reinforce the low end, as it were. In AR's tradition, it's an acoustic suspension speaker. Also, it's less efficient than my speakers, again if memory serves, producing between 87 and 89 dB SPL with 2.83V at 1 m.
Surprising how a relatively small difference can have a large effect in real life. Still excellent speakers, but not up to par with later technology.
Anyway, I quickly dropped in the AR94 speakers in their place. They still sound very clean and coherent to me, but they definitely lack the low end in compariosn. What they do have is clean and coherent, but I very much doubt they go below 50 Hz much. Nominally, my regular speakers go to 36 Hz at -3 dB, appearently not a very large difference, but it seems a crucial one.
Just to refresh your memory, AR94 were the world's first 2.5 way speakers. They have two 8" drivers, even visually different. Both work at the same time, but the lower one has an inductor in its signal path, which is supposed to limit their operation at around 80 Hz, if memory serves. It's supposed to reinforce the low end, as it were. In AR's tradition, it's an acoustic suspension speaker. Also, it's less efficient than my speakers, again if memory serves, producing between 87 and 89 dB SPL with 2.83V at 1 m.
Surprising how a relatively small difference can have a large effect in real life. Still excellent speakers, but not up to par with later technology.
Last edited:
Hi,
That old dragon of a uni-pivot? No, Nigel you do not want one of those.
If you want a good, well behaved uni-pivot go for one of Tom Fletcher's Omega Points.
(I think Tom's retired now but his products (read his engineering children) should still be around. He's also a man with big friendly audio heart, one that deserves a statue in British audio).
Best,
Funny you should mention Tom . I never knew him, but admired him for his commonsense logic. His use of a stepper motor was not wrong. He designed an amplifier with 211 valves. It was never finished. I have been offered to complete it. It will be a redesign as I want it to work. 211 takes more driving power than people think. I will drive it with a power pentode and will use it in pentode. Colleen has beg me not to as it is running at 1000V. As I said to her 450 V is no better.
Whilst I agree about uni-pivots they have a freedom from bearing effects. That is most bearings are either loose or tight. Stiction ( static friction ) is the worst thing an arm can have assuming the structure has been well designed. The better uni-pivots like Schroeder have the mass placed low so as to minimize twisting forces. All arms should have the mass placed low to aid tracking. There might be an optimum position which seems likely to be in the plane of the record when normal arms. I have a Naim Aro that seems to live in Germany these days. That is a nice arm. Origin Live Conqueror is similar.
Joy of joys I have the Thorens TD145 ( 160 ) working very well. Last night I decided the belts I have are slightly worn. Taking the worse I boiled it in water for 5 minutes. This often shrinks the rubber a little. It worked. Convinced I had a new belt I looked and found it. I saw it a few weeks ago. Two TD124 belts also?!? Interestingly the new one had suffered from being stored in a draw. Whilst not kinked the belt was serpentine. From the first moment the sound was far better despite its shape. Before the belt change it sounded like everything was incompatible. Arm and cartridge unsuited, cartridge worn out, Mistracking. Slightly hopeless and not obvious why. Audiophile eyes would see the pathetic cable and the DIN plug. The Quads technical spec saying why bother. None of that was the problem. After the modification the Linn " timing " thing is excellent. Before the musicians were falling into each other. The other effect was everything sounded broken at the treble end a no real bass. The bass is still slightly shy and to my mind correct now. Calculating the arm resonance ( 8 CU and 16.5 g mass 4.8 g PU and 2g hardware ) I get 11.7 Hz if my maths correct. That was thought to be ideal in the past. Often measured resonance ( Ortofon disc ) is different. I added enough mass ( Blu Tak ) to get it down to I assume 10 Hz.
In technical reviews I think I read the Quad is 0 dB overload at 20 kHz. That is awful. Last night I heard it ! Jessy Norman singing Four last songs of Richard Strauss. It was curious rather than painful. I would say for the Quad this combination is near to paradise. In the past I have heard the Quad fail every test that a cheap NAD or Rotel could pass. Here it is different and all is happy. The sound is tight as my only criticism. Like someone who is too correct when speaking. If someone insists on have an all Quad system of 1967 this will be an absolute winner ( Would be TD150 ). The Moving coil qualities will be heard. DL 110 is a rare animal. A high output MC that justifies it's existence.
The TP 16 arm is probably many times better than people would think. I would guess better than the SME 9 inch series 2 and even the cheaper Jelco. The TP16 gimble bearings are not bad.
The sting in the tail . Thorens belts have a very short life. Linn belts seems to last 10 years. The other thing is most belt drives seem to have the wrong belt. Grundig cloth back belts of the 1950's seem correct ( tape recorders ).
I will put a DIN socket in my sons Rotel RA 840 as I feel he should have that. I will build 50 / 67.5 Hz PSU as that will help preserve the belt. A TDA 2040 and output transformer should do it. 74 HC 4060 3.2768 and 4.433619 MHz crystals and 6 pole Chebishev filter ( fine for single frequencies ). HC CMOS will drive the input passive filter fine. I can build 2 poles into the TDA 2040. The 45 crystal I think is an old colour burst one from TV. Close to the correct speed. I will need 2 x 74HC 4060 to get the divide down. A 6V output transformer should do it ( 230 to 6 V reversed) . It possibly will need 9V rms to get to 240 V as the regulation is not the same as step down.
The best story A J told me is he designed new spark cables for his Jaguar. It was so as to not have to buy a Mercedes. His staff say he is very untidy but knows where everything is. You touch it at your peril. I must say he is an absolute gentleman and would call him a friend any day. He was at his own room at the Heathrow show. Instead of talking about his stuff he could only speak about his Nagra tape deck he brought with him. I think he told me he worked in the chemical industry and specialized in rubber? I won't get involved in the wows of capitalism. Good luck to him if people with more money than sense go silly. You have to realize the silly people like a ratchet have created this market over the last 20 years. The expression " you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink " comes to mind. I bet A J would trade them all for sales of $10 in the millions. 660 000 Dynaco A25 I think were sold ? These days 100 would be lucky.
Now you lot. It is you and you alone who have created this. You do not inspire people to want hi fi. You just speak from mount Olympus. How boring is that?
To illustrate. One guy I know was in Formula one. He designed the Garrard Zero 100 arm . He said to me what I sold was too cheap. Then the killer blow. He thought what I sold probably sounded better. His choice was sounds OK and friends would say wow. I think he bought a Krell. Later he said the system didn't really work. That's not the Krell. It is the expertise of the dealer. Often he is a psychologist and has less than no technical skills. That is he has beliefs. I will drive the customers away with honest advice. They don't want that. Like in the film Pretty woman they want " Serious sucking up ".
Now you lot. It is you and you alone who have created this. You do not inspire people to want hi fi. You just speak from mount Olympus. How boring is that?
To illustrate. One guy I know was in Formula one. He designed the Garrard Zero 100 arm . He said to me what I sold was too cheap. Then the killer blow. He thought what I sold probably sounded better. His choice was sounds OK and friends would say wow. I think he bought a Krell. Later he said the system didn't really work. That's not the Krell. It is the expertise of the dealer. Often he is a psychologist and has less than no technical skills. That is he has beliefs. I will drive the customers away with honest advice. They don't want that. Like in the film Pretty woman they want " Serious sucking up ".
Dejan. AR 94 . very interesting and logical. I was to meet him. My friend Sid died so it never happened. E V and I both lived in Woodstock. I suspect mine is the original? My friend just bought a AR turntable. I suspect it would eat the TD 145 for breakfast. The arm is so solid. The DL 110 should work well in it.
E V recorded anechoic music on his lawn at home. That test disc is wonderful. The Sarasatie and The History of a Soldier my favourite. Not an easy record as it sounds real.
E V recorded anechoic music on his lawn at home. That test disc is wonderful. The Sarasatie and The History of a Soldier my favourite. Not an easy record as it sounds real.
With Frank (fas42) all over my mind, I have to say I am a bit surprised just how good those old ARs are. That's notwithstanding the subjective and I suspect objective deep bass extension, which I do miss more than I suspected I would.
The reason why I think of Aussie Frank is that we agreed that any system is only as good as its weakest link. Honmestly, I suspect we don't really get it in full force until it is literally shoved in our face. I honestly wasn't aware that these old ARs were that good, I relaced them with my onw speakers 12 years ago and never looked back - which was a mistake. Just because something is better doesn't mean the old is bad, just that it's left behind by the new kids on the block.
On the other hand, I sorted my own system out a lot since the days the ARs were working full time. This clearly shows that at the time, it wasn't them holding me back, it was something else. Since then, I changed practically my whole system, the only other leftover from those days are the speaker van den Hul 352 Hybrid cables, but the tuner, the CD player, the preamp and the power amp have all been changed. Obviously, for the better, now giving me a chance to reassess my own AR speakers.
I like what I'm hearing. It's good to revisit parts of the old system to put it in some perspective with what replaced it. Sort of a personal feedback, if you like.
As for TTs, like everything else, and even more than that, they were susceptible to fashon.
At one point, the Linn Sondek was "in". It was a very good TT, no doubt, but I honestly don't see or hear how was it better that its equivalent Thorens, for example. Those were the days of fierce competition, with ideas flying all over the place.
My own Dual came with its own tone arm. It is suspended from four points, and its counterweight has both been lowered and itself suspended from a spring. Dual said this was to reduce tonearm resonance. I don't know how well it compares with similar products of the day, but the one thing I have learnt over time is that it was all but designed for Ortofon's low mass OM cartridges. I did try others, like Shure, Stanton, Audio Technica, etc, and overall it fared relatively well, but was never the best. On the other hand, with the OM series of styli it beat the lot and got what no other did from the Ortofons (in its price class, that is, and I daresay well above it as well). Which is why I stuck with it to this day.
At one point, the Linn Sondek was "in". It was a very good TT, no doubt, but I honestly don't see or hear how was it better that its equivalent Thorens, for example. Those were the days of fierce competition, with ideas flying all over the place.
My own Dual came with its own tone arm. It is suspended from four points, and its counterweight has both been lowered and itself suspended from a spring. Dual said this was to reduce tonearm resonance. I don't know how well it compares with similar products of the day, but the one thing I have learnt over time is that it was all but designed for Ortofon's low mass OM cartridges. I did try others, like Shure, Stanton, Audio Technica, etc, and overall it fared relatively well, but was never the best. On the other hand, with the OM series of styli it beat the lot and got what no other did from the Ortofons (in its price class, that is, and I daresay well above it as well). Which is why I stuck with it to this day.
Nicely said, Dejan. It's something that has had me bemused over the years, the constant striving for most audio enthusiasts for acquiring or building the latest and greatest, in the "vague hope" that somehow their system would be, finally, magically transformed into the all singing, all dancing machine. The realisation, decades ago, that it was all about refinement of what one already had, was a major "breakthrough" for me - I have not changed my attitude in that respect one iota since, everything I've done in the interim has only reinforced that belief.
Where the learning is still happening is nailing the "why"; and the "smartest", the most efficient route to optimum sound - plenty still to do!
Where the learning is still happening is nailing the "why"; and the "smartest", the most efficient route to optimum sound - plenty still to do!
My mother's mother used to say that we learn all our lives and still die foolish.
I may be too kind to myself, but I honestly think nobody else here understands you better than I do. The twist lies in experience. I have been flabbergasted a few times by how one little difference can make un unbelievable improvement. One would never ever guess it, until it happens to him.
My latest was using the occasion to recap my very beloved Haraman/Kardon 6550 integrated amp to also change the volume pot from a worst junk quality to a sensible ALPS Blue. The resulting difference in sound I still find hard to believe, it's enormous. From a solid but unexciting device, the amp turned out a sound I don't often hear from the High End - literally so. It took me several weeks to start believing it myself, it was that radical.
Before that happened to me, I would not have thought it possible in my most drunk, sexed up and doped mood. Sure, the mew caps also did their bit, but I had original H/K spare parts, meaning I didn't put in any fancy boutique parts, strictly the regular stuff, which was by then 20 years old. But nothing like what I eventually got.
I realize this was a freak accident, I stumbled on the Kingpin of Improvement, and I cannot claim it's always like that. But it does happen. Over the years, I have learnt by experiment that the best way to improve Philips/Marantz CD šlayers was to jerk the NJR I/V converting op amp out and install an OPA 275. Tried may op amps, both mine and borrowed, but none did as well as that one. It may not exactly transform the player, but it will quite audibly improve it more than you'd expect. For the price involved, really a lot.
Frank, people erroniously think that by changing just one link in the audio chain, they can achieve nirvana. But all they do is remove/replace one weak link, which does improve matters, but also passes on the burden of being a weak link to another device. So, if you want audio nirvana, you need to take several steps, one by one, to perhaps wreak the most out of your system.
It is also typically assumed the speaker is the weakest link, because it is a transducer, an eectro-mechanical device. Sometimes, it really is so, but I find that in many cases people have little idea what their speakers are capable of, but do not deliver because of other bottlenecks. Others go for cables because they have been fed wild advertising horse dung by cable "manufacturers" (because in reality, most OEM their cables from another source), they seem easy to do, and just about everybody "understands" cables.
Assumption is the mother of most life's f-ups.
It is also typically assumed the speaker is the weakest link, because it is a transducer, an eectro-mechanical device. Sometimes, it really is so, but I find that in many cases people have little idea what their speakers are capable of, but do not deliver because of other bottlenecks. Others go for cables because they have been fed wild advertising horse dung by cable "manufacturers" (because in reality, most OEM their cables from another source), they seem easy to do, and just about everybody "understands" cables.
Assumption is the mother of most life's f-ups.
Thank you for that, George.
My cartridge should be a little earler than the shown 43 cm/dyne model, mine is nominally 40 cm/dyne.
For what it's worth, I have never seen my bass cones do a jig dance on me even at nominally full rated power. Low or subsonic filter off. With or without any LP I own, and only one I have is somewhat warped.
Come to think of it, it seems all this is very much in line with John said about +6 dB etc.
Last edited:
Hi,
That's so very true.
Remember the "magic" anecdote with the JA200 amps?
The speakers happened to be the exact same model as I had at home.
Even though well regarded by the press at the time and pretty novel thinking in the days of little inefficient boxes they were most certainly not aimed at the high-end clientele the Jadis amps were shooting for.
Still, when the stars align magic happens....
As it happens I know a few high-end dealers in the Brussels area that really know how to set up a system.
If you can afford it buy the system you like, not the amp you've been told to buy.
Know what I mean?
Cheers,
That's so very true.
Remember the "magic" anecdote with the JA200 amps?
The speakers happened to be the exact same model as I had at home.
Even though well regarded by the press at the time and pretty novel thinking in the days of little inefficient boxes they were most certainly not aimed at the high-end clientele the Jadis amps were shooting for.
Still, when the stars align magic happens....
As it happens I know a few high-end dealers in the Brussels area that really know how to set up a system.
If you can afford it buy the system you like, not the amp you've been told to buy.
Know what I mean?
Cheers,
Last edited:
Thanks for the good words, Dejan. Yes, removing the "weaknesses" - it sounds straightforward, but the reality is that it can be very frustrating, irksome to the max; it's like the car that has a misbehaving engine, and the mechanic is going nuts trying to find where the problem is: the solution may be trivial, it's finding the cause that's the battle. But that mechanic has a very powerful tool in his workshop - he knows how the engine should behave, because he's experienced great numbers of perfectly OK engines; he has absolutely zero problems with starting to believe that all engines "misbehave" - he don't need no stinkin' DBTs ...
he has absolutely zero problems with starting to believe that all engines "misbehave" - he don't need no stinkin' DBTs ...
Thats entirely correct. By the same token, he doesn't drive endlessly around the block adding new and esoteric components to the vehicle, or making novel and untried changes. He measures some pretty basic parameters and uses diagnostic tooling to identify, rectify and test the end result.
Scientific method, writ small.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.