What was it like ?

[melvin walker]

Times were very different , 50 years ago stereo was brand new. Most Americans owned monaural consoles. The LP was just coming into it's on. Record turntables were not very good and few audio companies had stereo amps. Most audiophiles had one speaker.
Tape recorders were generally noisy and expensive.
Believe it or not there was no Japanese audio equipment. All audio gear was either American are European.

There was audio shows sponsored by the audio equipment manufactures., It was not usual
to meet the owners and engineers of audio companies such as Marantz , Fisher , Scott,
Bozak , Jensen , etc, at the audio shows. These men loved their work and enjoyed talking about
it with people who attended the shows.
They would even visit some homes of audiophiles.

Most of us built our amps and speaker cabinets , and installed the raw speakers. There were few speakers that could not be purchased in kit form.
Space will not allow me to list the names of all the pioneering audio companies. Most no longer exist. I have a 1962 Annual Stereo Review , there was less than 5 Japanese audio companies, 10 years later most of the audio companies were Japanese.

Things have changed the audio industry has grown , most audio equipment companies are owned by large corporations are Japanese.
At one time one could call an audio company and you might talk to the owner , Avery Fisher, not today , you are lucky to speak to a person.

We live in an impersonal society today , technology has replaced face to face communication. The gape between the haves and the have nots is growing. At one time a Major League baseball player might live down the street. Not today with $200,000,000
salaries.

Many of the people of that generation is passing on. The younger generation will never have those experiences. It is very difficult today to talk to the younger generation.
We don't dialogue as much as we did at one time. For that I am sorry.

[markw]

Well, fifty years ago I was nine years old and had just been exposed to my rich uncle’s Magnavox console radio/phonograph. That set off an acquisitional lust for music and something to play it on besides my one-tube Webcor phonograph with a crystal cartridge. But, at that age, one doesn’t have much say in what the family buys for music reproduction, particularly in a family that doesn’t appreciate music.

Thankfully. My uncle and aunt nurtured my interest music and would take me to concerts in Newark and NYC and they bought me my first radio. An all-American five AM from Woolworth’s.

Did I mention that my uncle was a teacher at a vocational school in Newark? No? Well, anyway, one day he dropped off an electronics textbook they used in the school (Elements of Radio, 4th Edition, Marcus and Marcus). I read this cover to cover several times and, by 1962, had built my first amp from that book, an AC/DC push-pull jobbie using two 50L6’s and two 12 SQ7’s. I used money from mowing lawns and shoveling snow for this and it would up in that little Webcor driving an automotive 6x9 speaker.

Yes, I knew about stereo. For a Jr High schooler I was ahead of the curve. Somehow during htis time I got hold of an old Magnavox mono console and rebuilt it. It wasn’t really “hi-fi” but it sounded good to my young ears.

I read about these new things called transistors and was fascinated with the changes it would afford. Smaller units, more power, better sound (well, maybe). Since this new stereo thing was just coming on boars, Some guys named Edgar Vilchur and Henry Kloss invented acoustic suspension speakers that allowed big bass from smaller cabinets.

I had been doing AV work at the church and schools from he time I was 11. I subscribed to Stereo Review (or whatever it was at that time) and, in ’65 or so I saved enough to buy my first little stereo from Lafayette (LA-224A, Garrard AT-60 with a Pickering V-15 cartridge, and a pair of Criterion 50 speakers). I had (still have) absolutely no woodworking skills and although I was dreaming of the Dyancos, Heathkits, Eicos, Knights, and Lafayette kits of that era, parents is parents, and they didn’t want me buying a kit.

Eventually I graduated high school in the summer of love. Thanks to my church work, my knowledge of stereo was known in the area and I got a job installing in one of the local hi-fi stores. Two months later I was offered the job of managing a stereo concession in a local Macy’s, which sold the big names. I wasn’t even eighteen yet. I got to attend two of the hi-fi shows in NYC.

Then, when I turned eighteen, I got drafted but dodged that and went into the AF instead. When I got out, the concessions were closed, Radio Shacks popped up and so did the chain hi-fi stores.

From that point on, hi-fi was just a hobby. I subscribed to the big three, Stereo Review, High Fidelity and Audio. The last two until they went out of business and I’m considering dropping what Stereo review morphed into but, honestly, it keeps me abreast on what’s current in the world of home entertainment.

I accumulated a lot of toys over the years, some of which I mentioned earlier. Also several receivers, integrated amps, various turntables, speakers and the like before winding up with what make up my main systems.. But, my personal favorite system is my Marantz 2270 driving a pair of JBL L-26's and a Miracord 50H TT. asa concession to the 21st century, Ive added a Cd player and a Toshiba DVD/VCR for the office TV system. Yeah, it's not hi-tech or top of the line but, dang it, is sure sounds nice!

Yes, it’s changed. The whole world has changed but nothing stays the same. Japanese stereos are no more. They are now made in china, Malaysia and other Pacific Rim countries. It’s a global economy and one must learn to accept that.

Yes, young kids can’t say they lived through the changes we did but, on the other hand, they were born into the digital age and are more capable of that than we will ever be. That many don’t have an interest in pure audio is natural since, like learning to drive on a stick-shift, it’s not a part of their upbringing like it was for us. Most were brought up with CD’s multi-channel video, Ipods and the like’

But for the few that do have that spark, it should be fanned and encouraged to grow, not snuffed out with sarcasm and elitism. Dialog is easy but, you must remember that it’s a two way street. Us old farts can learn at least as much from them about today‘s technologies than they can from us about yesterday’s marvels and guess what’s gonna be around longer?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Times were very different , 50 years ago stereo was brand new. Most Americans owned monaural consoles. The LP was just coming into it's on. Record turntables were not very good and few audio companies had stereo amps. Most audiophiles had one speaker.
Tape recorders were generally noisy and expensive.
Believe it or not there was no Japanese audio equipment. All audio gear was either American are European.
A tired old conversation Melvin. BTW, this would probably fit better in the Vintage Gear forum.


There was audio shows sponsored by the audio equipment manufactures., It was not usual
to meet the owners and engineers of audio companies such as Marantz , Fisher , Scott,
Bozak , Jensen , etc, at the audio shows. These men loved their work and enjoyed talking about
it with people who attended the shows.
They would even visit some homes of audiophiles.
I suspect this is where you gracefully back away from your previous statements about the gentlemen you seemingly had personal conversations with. I stand by my previous statement, and I don't think its ME who has insecurity issues.


Most of us built our amps and speaker cabinets , and installed the raw speakers. There were few speakers that could not be purchased in kit form.
Space will not allow me to list the names of all the pioneering audio companies. Most no longer exist. I have a 1962 Annual Stereo Review , there was less than 5 Japanese audio companies, 10 years later most of the audio companies were Japanese.

Things have changed the audio industry has grown , most audio equipment companies are owned by large corporations are Japanese.
At one time one could call an audio company and you might talk to the owner , Avery Fisher, not today , you are lucky to speak to a person.
Again, there are probably a million threads here that have already covered this ground.


We live in an impersonal society today , technology has replaced face to face communication. The gape between the haves and the have nots is growing. At one time a Major League baseball player might live down the street. Not today with $200,000,000
salaries.

Many of the people of that generation is passing on. The younger generation will never have those experiences. It is very difficult today to talk to the younger generation.
We don't dialogue as much as we did at one time. For that I am sorry.
I don't think basite will agree with most of this.

You left the other thread with many unanswered questions Melvin.

[mlsstl]

Things do change with time. Around a hundred years ago, John Philip Sousa bemoaned the invention of recorded music. His complaint was that recordings would result in fewer people learning to play musical instruments. He was looking down his nose at the experience you relish.

I grew up many years ago and built Heathkit and Dynaco tube equipment and had a bunch of fun doing so. These days I do a lot of work with computer based music. I own equipment that would have been considered sheer fantasy in science fiction movies of the 1950s. I can enjoy music these days in ways that were impossible many years ago. (And one can even still find the top people in many small audio companies still easily accessible.)

Each point in history offers its own mix of technology. We can either wish we were someplace else, in another time, or we can take advantage of where we are. I'm glad I had the past experiences I did, but I wouldn't trade where I am today.

And, these and similar forums are full of people, young and old, who have very interesting conversations about audio on an daily basis. Anyone can jump in (and they do.)

There, I think we just had a dialogue! ;-)

[Feanor]

Times were very different , 50 years ago stereo was brand new. Most Americans owned monaural consoles. The LP was just coming into it's on. Record turntables were not very good and few audio companies had stereo amps. Most audiophiles had one speaker.
...

We live in an impersonal society today , technology has replaced face to face communication. The gape between the haves and the have nots is growing. At one time a Major League baseball player might live down the street. Not today with $200,000,000
salaries.

Many of the people of that generation is passing on. The younger generation will never have those experiences. It is very difficult today to talk to the younger generation.
We don't dialogue as much as we did at one time. For that I am sorry.

Compared to what they are going to be. Yes, the world is increasingly impersonal. The takeover of audio by larger Japanese companies was merely a foretaste of what is to come thanks to "globalization". The sense of community we had as integral cultures and nations is being swept away, replaced with a media-manufactured, entertainment-based public mono-culture that is entirely meant to subjugate and exploit the masses for the benefit of an ever tinier, ever richer minority.

[markw]

Compared to what they are going to be. Yes, the world is increasingly impersonal. The takeover of audio by larger Japanese companies was merely a foretaste of what is to come thanks to "globalization". The sense of community we had as integral cultures and nations is being swept away, replaced with a media-manufactured, entertainment-based public obsession that is entirely meant to subjugate and exploit the masses for the benefit of an ever tinier, ever richer minority.I'm not saying it's not true, but couldn't ya have at least waited until the holidays were over??? ;)

Remember, we've got elections coming up this year and so far the pickings are mighty slim on both sides. It looks like a lose/lose situation to me and I was hoping for one good drunk with happy thoughts tonight.

[blackraven]

I can remeber my father, an electrical engineer, building a Heath Kit high end stereo and speakers (for the time back then). That was my first introduction to good stereo sound. It had a separate tuner and integrated amp. I beleive it was part tube and solid state if I remeber correctly.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I'm not saying it's not true, but couldn't ya have at least waited until the holidays were over??? ;)

Remember, we've got elections coming up this year and so far the pickings are mighty slim on both sides. It looks like a lose/lose situation to me and I was hoping for one good drunk with happy thoughts tonight.
Re-elect G.W!!! :crazy:

[JohnMichael]

Re-elect G.W!!! :crazy:




Canada, here I come.

[Feanor]

I can remeber my father, an electrical engineer, building a Heath Kit high end stereo and speakers (for the time back then). That was my first introduction to good stereo sound. It had a separate tuner and integrated amp. I beleive it was part tube and solid state if I remeber correctly.

In about 1971 I built a Dyanco PAT-4 preamp, a Stereo 80 power amp, and FM-5 tuner, all solid state. However before the FM-5 I built an FM-3 tube tuner. It's only in the last year that I've again owned a tube component, but I've often wondered how I'd have felt about tube if I'd build a PAS-3 instead of the PAT-4, and a Stereo 70 instead of the Stereo 80.

[bobsticks]

Canada, here I come.

3222...

[basite]

I don't think basite will agree with most of this.

You left the other thread with many unanswered questions Melvin.


yeah,

I don't agree with that indeed :cornut:

Happy new year to all, it's 2008 here already :ihih:

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[melvin walker]

Well, fifty years ago I was nine years old and had just been exposed to my rich uncle’s Magnavox console radio/phonograph. That set off an acquisitional lust for music and something to play it on besides my one-tube Webcor phonograph with a crystal cartridge. But, at that age, one doesn’t have much say in what the family buys for music reproduction, particularly in a family that doesn’t appreciate music.

Thankfully. My uncle and aunt nurtured my interest music and would take me to concerts in Newark and NYC and they bought me my first radio. An all-American five AM from Woolworth’s.

Did I mention that my uncle was a teacher at a vocational school in Newark? No? Well, anyway, one day he dropped off an electronics textbook they used in the school (Elements of Radio, 4th Edition, Marcus and Marcus). I read this cover to cover several times and, by 1962, had built my first amp from that book, an AC/DC push-pull jobbie using two 50L6’s and two 12 SQ7’s. I used money from mowing lawns and shoveling snow for this and it would up in that little Webcor driving an automotive 6x9 speaker.

Yes, I knew about stereo. For a Jr High schooler I was ahead of the curve. Somehow during htis time I got hold of an old Magnavox mono console and rebuilt it. It wasn’t really “hi-fi” but it sounded good to my young ears.

I read about these new things called transistors and was fascinated with the changes it would afford. Smaller units, more power, better sound (well, maybe). Since this new stereo thing was just coming on boars, Some guys named Edgar Vilchur and Henry Kloss invented acoustic suspension speakers that allowed big bass from smaller cabinets.

I had been doing AV work at the church and schools from he time I was 11. I subscribed to Stereo Review (or whatever it was at that time) and, in ’65 or so I saved enough to buy my first little stereo from Lafayette (LA-224A, Garrard AT-60 with a Pickering V-15 cartridge, and a pair of Criterion 50 speakers). I had (still have) absolutely no woodworking skills and although I was dreaming of the Dyancos, Heathkits, Eicos, Knights, and Lafayette kits of that era, parents is parents, and they didn’t want me buying a kit.

Eventually I graduated high school in the summer of love. Thanks to my church work, my knowledge of stereo was known in the area and I got a job installing in one of the local hi-fi stores. Two months later I was offered the job of managing a stereo concession in a local Macy’s, which sold the big names. I wasn’t even eighteen yet. I got to attend two of the hi-fi shows in NYC.

Then, when I turned eighteen, I got drafted but dodged that and went into the AF instead. When I got out, the concessions were closed, Radio Shacks popped up and so did the chain hi-fi stores.

From that point on, hi-fi was just a hobby. I subscribed to the big three, Stereo Review, High Fidelity and Audio. The last two until they went out of business and I’m considering dropping what Stereo review morphed into but, honestly, it keeps me abreast on what’s current in the world of home entertainment.

I accumulated a lot of toys over the years, some of which I mentioned earlier. Also several receivers, integrated amps, various turntables, speakers and the like before winding up with what make up my main systems.. But, my personal favorite system is my Marantz 2270 driving a pair of JBL L-26's and a Miracord 50H TT. asa concession to the 21st century, Ive added a Cd player and a Toshiba DVD/VCR for the office TV system. Yeah, it's not hi-tech or top of the line but, dang it, is sure sounds nice!

Yes, it’s changed. The whole world has changed but nothing stays the same. Japanese stereos are no more. They are now made in china, Malaysia and other Pacific Rim countries. It’s a global economy and one must learn to accept that.

Yes, young kids can’t say they lived through the changes we did but, on the other hand, they were born into the digital age and are more capable of that than we will ever be. That many don’t have an interest in pure audio is natural since, like learning to drive on a stick-shift, it’s not a part of their upbringing like it was for us. Most were brought up with CD’s multi-channel video, Ipods and the like’

But for the few that do have that spark, it should be fanned and encouraged to grow, not snuffed out with sarcasm and elitism. Dialog is easy but, you must remember that it’s a two way street. Us old farts can learn at least as much from them about today‘s technologies than they can from us about yesterday’s marvels and guess what’s gonna be around longer?

There are many websites visited by hobbyist. Cars head the list. Many car buffs young and old .There are many publications for classic cars. Examples the magazines will compare older vs the newer ones. Recently a BMW magazine compared the new 6 series coupe with the older 8 series coupe. There was a lively debate. This was carried over to the 850 website. The last year of production for the 8 series sold in America was 1996.

There are as for as I know no classic audio magazine , as a result most young people interested in audio has little knowledge of the earlier audio equipment and the men that made it all possible.
The 8 series BMW in their last years of production sold for over $100,000. The new 6 series that replaced it is $20,000 cheaper . is it a better car ? of course with all the new technology. Is audio any different , of course not.

The major difference today between audio and cars is as I said in an earlier post there are car clubs but there isn't any audio clubs. As for as comparisons , watch companies compares their watches to cars , clothing companies compares their clothing to both watches and cars , Jewelry companies compare their jewelry to cars, clothing and watches.
At one time audio magazines compared the audio to cars. But there are few audio magazines.

One does not have to live through a period to appreciate it , that is why we have history.
Because of the shortage of audio magazines and the lack of audio clubs the history of
audio suffers , young audio hobbyist are therefor not as exposed to classic audio as other hobbyist are.

By the 1970's audio had reached a point in which the equipment had advanced to a point beyond human hearing. At that point only audio test equipment could determine the difference. Musical taste changed , speakers were designed for a different type of music , an example was the Bozak Symphany speakers. The JBL Paragon and the Tannoy Churchill's. All designed for music played to a different generation.

Finally pop singer Johnny Mathis was asked what was the difference between today's music and when he started recording in the middle 1950's his answer was " decibels ,
The music is played much louder today " Imaging is more of a priority today than in the days of Sinatra and Mathis.
That that does not mean that the music of that era was better, even that can be debated
but the music of today is different.
If the music is different than naturally the music equipment is different. Bozak could not sell the concert Grands , BMW could not sell the 850's both were outstanding .
Bozak went out of business , BMW was able to absorb the lost.
Times have changed.

[frenchmon]

Re-elect G.W!!! :crazy:


You have got to be insain

frenchmon:ihih:

[Rich-n-Texas]

You have got to be insain

frenchmon:ihih:
:biggrin5:

To add to this tired same old same old... the only reason I keep my AKAI M9 Reel-to-Reel, my Pioneer SX-251 and my old Pioneer PL-400 TT is because it keeps me connected to my past while I work my way through my mid-life crisis. Beyond that, this 50 year old couldn't give a rats a$$ about what was. It's all about the here and now. I'll soon be retiring my little HTR to garage duty in order to make way for a bigger (more power) and better (more bells & whistles, including ethernet connectivity) workhorse.

Oh, by the way, I drive a 2000 Firebird Formula with 320 rwhp, FWIW.

[frenchmon]

There are many websites visited by hobbyist. Cars head the list. Many car buffs young and old .There are many publications for classic cars. Examples the magazines will compare older vs the newer ones. Recently a BMW magazine compared the new 6 series coupe with the older 8 series coupe. There was a lively debate. This was carried over to the 850 website. The last year of production for the 8 series sold in America was 1996.

There are as for as I know no classic audio magazine , as a result most young people interested in audio has little knowledge of the earlier audio equipment and the men that made it all possible.
The 8 series BMW in their last years of production sold for over $100,000. The new 6 series that replaced it is $20,000 cheaper . is it a better car ? of course with all the new technology. Is audio any different , of course not.

The major difference today between audio and cars is as I said in an earlier post there are car clubs but there isn't any audio clubs. As for as comparisons , watch companies compares their watches to cars , clothing companies compares their clothing to both watches and cars , Jewelry companies compare their jewelry to cars, clothing and watches.
At one time audio magazines compared the audio to cars. But there are few audio magazines.

One does not have to live through a period to appreciate it , that is why we have history.
Because of the shortage of audio magazines and the lack of audio clubs the history of
audio suffers , young audio hobbyist are therefor not as exposed to classic audio as other hobbyist are.

By the 1970's audio had reached a point in which the equipment had advanced to a point beyond human hearing. At that point only audio test equipment could determine the difference. Musical taste changed , speakers were designed for a different type of music , an example was the Bozak Symphany speakers. The JBL Paragon and the Tannoy Churchill's. All designed for music played to a different generation.

Finally pop singer Johnny Mathis was asked what was the difference between today's music and when he started recording in the middle 1950's his answer was " decibels ,
The music is played much louder today " Imaging is more of a priority today than in the days of Sinatra and Mathis.
That that does not mean that the music of that era was better, even that can be debated
but the music of today is different.
If the music is different than naturally the music equipment is different. Bozak could not sell the concert Grands , BMW could not sell the 850's both were outstanding .
Bozak went out of business , BMW was able to absorb the lost.
Times have changed.

Melvin, I enjoy reading about your day and era. I am but 46, but I love to hear the music of the pioneers. I love the old folk blues created by those who recorded in the 1920's...I love the early negro spirituals, I love the early Jazz such as Armstong , I love the big band era with Chick Web, Glenn Miller, I liked Cole Porter, I love Dizzy, Bird and Coltraine, Dextor Gordon is my favorite Tenor Sax...oh that man walked and talked and even smoked his cigs in a why that made you say oh yes thats Jazz. I even love Dewy Redmans avangaurd Jazz.

But you know what, when I play some of the older stuff such as the Old Robert Johnson blues stuff it just don't sound right played on todays gear. Why? Because of new technology. I love todays artist as well. I really love Yo Yo Ma and his Bass fiddle but I don't think yeasterdays gear would make it sound right. I love Eliane Elias...oh I think she put Diana Krall to a shame....Not taking away Diana's talent but Eliane is so much more polished in piano. But the gear of your era just won't do either of those ladies any good today as far as sound goes.

So whats my point? Things have changed. And people must change with it. I'm sure some of the things you experienced as a young fellow made you smile and gave you wonderful memories. But you can't hold on to the past and not embrace the here and now and the future.

Its almost like an insult to those of us who are here in the now. We look forward to the new stuff, its as if you don't want new stuff. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is some truth to the old saying The more things change, the more they stay the same" Its all good music, only better...Wine gets better with age. Just think if we never had the advancement in technology boom in the early 1900's the way we did..We would not even be having this discusion on this thing called the web, and you would never know what the 6 series BMW was. we all need to embrase change for teh better...Life Is Good!

I know your heart is in what use to be, but it might do you good to go out and buy some new gear and take a listen. You certainly have given me the idea of going out an looking for vintage gear to play some of the older mono stuff thats out there..

Just my two cents, and nothing more.

frenchmon

[frenchmon]

:biggrin5:

To add to this tired same old same old... the only reason I keep my AKAI M9 Reel-to-Reel, my Pioneer SX-251 and my old Pioneer PL-400 TT is because it keeps me connected to my past while I work my way through my mid-life crisis. Beyond that, this 50 year old couldn't give a rats a$$ about what was. It's all about the here and now. I'll soon be retiring my little HTR to garage duty in order to make way for a bigger (more power) and better (more bells & whistles, including ethernet connectivity) workhorse.

Oh, by the way, I drive a 2000 Firebird Formula with 320 rwhp, FWIW.

Ain't nothing wrong with vintage. I'm a believer that we should preserve and remember that which bought us to this point, and that we should look to the future for better enjoyment . But to use the past as a weapon is just not right. I don't think Melvin ment to do that, but thats just what he did.

Obtw, I drive a 1992 Satern. I'd rather put the money in new audio gear...I've already told the wife, I'm going to spend a least $10,000 on a good two channel system.

frenchmon

[kelsci]

I am 61 years old. At the age of 4, my father bought a 10 inch RCA television set for $400.I started to think about sound in my pre-teens. I remember friends who had hi-fi consoles. One friend had a Dumont television that had a 12 inch speaker, fm radio and phono jack that was so powerful you could hear the sound out of his appartment hundreds of feet away. Solid State reared its head in the '60s. I use to read the Lafayette catalog cover to cover just having a great feeling looking at all the audio equipment made by Lafayette and other manufacturers. In the 60s, my father bought a Maganavox stereo console, me thinking it was the greatest thing in the world. Actually the FM stereo radio sounded quite good. Years later, when I understood more about amplifiers, the power amp only had two 6bQ5 tubes so although the sound was nice, it really was not too powerful an amp, but the 12 inch speakers were very effecient. At that time my brother bought a HK compact system which were fairly powerful and fairly well made at that time.
I also watched the coming of color television from its beginnings in the 50s and its improvements during the 60s looking at sets that people I knew could afford to buy them.
In the 70s, I built a Dynaco sca-80Q int amp that really wowed my Marantz imp 6g speakers into a new realm. I also bought a Fisher X-100 tube amp that though not too powerful, had a great sound quality. I had been impressed with tube sound in the 1960s drifting into an appliance store somewhere on either Park or Lexington Ave in NYC listening on Empire commode speakers like the Grenadier, my favorites that I never got to own at that time. Such a rich audio-video history in the good ole days.

[melvin walker]

Melvin, I enjoy reading about your day and era. I am but 46, but I love to hear the music of the pioneers. I love the old folk blues created by those who recorded in the 1920's...I love the early negro spirituals, I love the early Jazz such as Armstong , I love the big band era with Chick Web, Glenn Miller, I liked Cole Porter, I love Dizzy, Bird and Coltraine, Dextor Gordon is my favorite Tenor Sax...oh that man walked and talked and even smoked his cigs in a why that made you say oh yes thats Jazz. I even love Dewy Redmans avangaurd Jazz.

But you know what, when I play some of the older stuff such as the Old Robert Johnson blues stuff it just don't sound right played on todays gear. Why? Because of new technology. I love todays artist as well. I really love Yo Yo Ma and his Bass fiddle but I don't think yeasterdays gear would make it sound right. I love Eliane Elias...oh I think she put Diana Krall to a shame....Not taking away Diana's talent but Eliane is so much more polished in piano. But the gear of your era just won't do either of those ladies any good today as far as sound goes.

So whats my point? Things have changed. And people must change with it. I'm sure some of the things you experienced as a young fellow made you smile and gave you wonderful memories. But you can't hold on to the past and not embrace the here and now and the future.

Its almost like an insult to those of us who are here in the now. We look forward to the new stuff, its as if you don't want new stuff. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is some truth to the old saying The more things change, the more they stay the same" Its all good music, only better...Wine gets better with age. Just think if we never had the advancement in technology boom in the early 1900's the way we did..We would not even be having this discussion on this thing called the web, and you would never know what the 6 series BMW was. we all need to embrace change for the better...Life Is Good!

I know your heart is in what use to be, but it might do you good to go out and buy some new gear and take a listen. You certainly have given me the idea of going out an looking for vintage gear to play some of the older mono stuff thats out there..

Just my two cents, and nothing more.

frenchmon

I have no problem with change. We are using the new technology exchanging different points of view on a computer. I would know what the 6 series is without the web , there are several magazines devoted to BMW some only to the coupes. My heart is not in what use to be , none of my post has indicated that. Because a hobbyist reads classic car magazines does not mean he does not appreciate modern cars.

A man may own a gullwing 300SL Mercedes and a new SL 500. My music systems include s CD players , CD recorders , DVD players , DVD recorders and Ipods.
Of my four audio system , one of the systems is devoted to older audio equipment.
The BWM 850 may have been out of production for over a decade but the new BMW 650
with limiters removed is a slower car.

What I have done in my brief period posting on this site is discuss the history of audio.
Discussed the audio systems that existed more than 4 decades ago. I have attacked no one and as called no one any names. I have not psychologized anyone.
I have given my opinion and read others. I learned to respect all opinions., whether I agree are not.

It is sad but it isn't worth the trouble continuing on this site.
I wish all of you a happy new year.

[Feanor]

Canada, here I come.

For the move to be worthwhile we Canadians first have to get ride of the present Conservative Party government under our Bush lick-spittle lacky prime minister, Stephen Harper.:mad:

The Conservatives are just like the U.S. Republicans: their agenda is controlled by global big business while their public appeal is based on the "free enterprise" sacred cow and totally disingenuous to appeal "family values". American voters are obviously fatuous but Canadian voters are no smarter.

[audio amateur]

To my knowledge there is no such thing as a 650. That would be the M6.

ps. I'm 20 and have been to several shows.
Happy new year to all once again

[blackraven]

Oh yes there is a BMW 650. Your very mistaken. I've looked into buying this car. Check the BMW web site. The M6 is a totally different car. The 650 use to be the 645. There are series 3,5,6&7 BMW's. The M series is in a class by itself.

[frenchmon]

I have no problem with change. We are using the new technology exchanging different points of view on a computer. I would know what the 6 series is without the web , there are several magazines devoted to BMW some only to the coupes. My heart is not in what use to be , none of my post has indicated that. Because a hobbyist reads classic car magazines does not mean he does not appreciate modern cars.

A man may own a gullwing 300SL Mercedes and a new SL 500. My music systems include s CD players , CD recorders , DVD players , DVD recorders and Ipods.
Of my four audio system , one of the systems is devoted to older audio equipment.
The BWM 850 may have been out of production for over a decade but the new BMW 650
with limiters removed is a slower car.

What I have done in my brief period posting on this site is discuss the history of audio.
Discussed the audio systems that existed more than 4 decades ago. I have attacked no one and as called no one any names. I have not psychologized anyone.
I have given my opinion and read others. I learned to respect all opinions., whether I agree are not.

It is sad but it isn't worth the trouble continuing on this site.
I wish all of you a happy new year.

One thing I have learned in life. Humility, constuctive criticism, and a positive perspective have gone by the way side for some.

You have a wonderful new year as well Melvin.

frenchmon

[pixelthis]

:biggrin5:

To add to this tired same old same old... the only reason I keep my AKAI M9 Reel-to-Reel, my Pioneer SX-251 and my old Pioneer PL-400 TT is because it keeps me connected to my past while I work my way through my mid-life crisis. Beyond that, this 50 year old couldn't give a rats a$$ about what was. It's all about the here and now. I'll soon be retiring my little HTR to garage duty in order to make way for a bigger (more power) and better (more bells & whistles, including ethernet connectivity) workhorse.

Oh, by the way, I drive a 2000 Firebird Formula with 320 rwhp, FWIW.

this is the silliest thing I have EVER heard, you're a yankee, so I guess I can excuse youir ignorance.
You remind me of a quote from Daniel webster, who said, "its better to be thought a fool, rather than to speak up and remove all doubt".
The "here and now" is a product of the past, they are connected by interwoven threads.
Go back and watch some old tvshows from the eighties, everybody had a hot stereo,
stuff like Tandburg, harmon (the real stuff) luxman, etc.
Now even companies like Marantz and Classe are producing cheap crap thats LOOKS
like high end gear, but aint.
I have a dvd player that looks like a high end CD player, its six inches deep, and the only "chassis" is the folded metal box that the faceplate is attached to.
What you fail to understand is that your "old" stuff is leagues better than some of your "new" stuff.
In every civilization where the "new" stuff isnt as good as the "old" stuff, well, that civilization is dying. And the "here and now" is whats important?
All of these plans for the future , they're based on your assets, right?
You don't understand that with the dollars troubles lately you've lost at least 30% value
from those assets.
Which is why I call you "rich on paper" rather than rich in Texas, I meant no offense,
its just that when you are ready to "cash in" dont be surprized if your "assets" wont buy a loaf of bread.
Thats what happens in dying civilizations.
But, hey, you at least have the "here and now":prrr:

[E-Stat]

By the 1970's audio had reached a point in which the equipment had advanced to a point beyond human hearing. At that point only audio test equipment could determine the difference.
I have great news for you. There is a huge world of audio available today that is apparently beyond your awareness.


If the music is different than naturally the music equipment is different.
First of all, there's a wealth of music that remains the same as it did 50 years ago. I'm not sure why you continue to believe that all musical recordings made today are poor. Such is not the case.

rw

[Rich-n-Texas]

< Snip all the insults and other name calling >

Which is why I call you "rich on paper" rather than rich in Texas, I meant no offense,
its just that when you are ready to "cash in" dont be surprized if your "assets" wont buy a loaf of bread.
Thats what happens in dying civilizations.
But, hey, you at least have the "here and now":prrr:
Thanks to the fact that I work for Texas Instruments, the world's third largest chip maker, my 401K is healthy and as can best be predicted will stay well ahead of inflation. I'll be very surprised if my assets don't buy bread, but thank you for your concern just the same.

BTW, you don't have to explain your reasoning behind the name calling. I just assume you were the school yard bully in Kindergarten and that trait has followed you through your life. :prrr:

[topspeed]

The M6 is a totally different car. The 650 use to be the 645. There are series 3,5,6&7 BMW's. The M series is in a class by itself.
True. The M's break a lot more.

[pixelthis]

Thanks to the fact that I work for Texas Instruments, the world's third largest chip maker, my 401K is healthy and as can best be predicted will stay well ahead of inflation. I'll be very surprised if my assets don't buy bread, but thank you for your concern just the same.

BTW, you don't have to explain your reasoning behind the name calling. I just assume you were the school yard bully in Kindergarten and that trait has followed you through your life. :prrr:

Sorry, but when anybody talks about "living" in the here and now they are showing their
ignorance, and sometimes my patience runs out.
The "here and now" is a result of the "past" you care so little about, and when the future is the "here and now" it will be the result of what you're doing NOW.
aND SINCE MOST LIVING IN THE "HERE AND NOW" CARE so little for the past, well, that carries over to the future as well.
Its all threads woven together, basically. You cant fart without the contribution from the past you dismiss so lightly.
And my 401k is in gold backed stuff, I KNOW mine will be there:ihih:

[pixelthis]

And pointing out somebodies ignorance is not being a "bully".
You can do something about being ignorant.
Now, if I picked on you for being a yankee, an affliction you can't help...:ihih:

[Rich-n-Texas]

And pointing out somebodies ignorance is not being a "bully".
You can do something about being ignorant.
Now, if I picked on you for being a yankee, an affliction you can't help...:ihih:
What do you mean "if"? Carpetbagger comes to mind...

The intention of my post was to contribute a hypothetical counter to a subject that has been beaten to death, has no winner or loser, and at the same time attempt to call the guy's bluff regarding who he's talked to. Looks to me like he was in the same conference room as opposed to being on a first name basis with Mr. Fisher, Mr. Marantz & Mr. Bozak. He created a false impression of himself and was called on it. Simple as that. Let's put it this way Pix... I'd give anything to have my old Pioneer SX-450 back as it would "connect me with my past." Sometimes when I turn on my SX-251 and CRANK it, it satisfies my big volume craving.

[blackraven]

Hey Rich, I know what you mean. I like the feeling of nostalgia with old equipment or music. I still have my old 1970's technic's integrated amp which is built like a beast. Every now and then, I like to listen to it along with some 70's and early 80's music with my wife. It brings back good memories to us of simpler times when we were living in Tulsa and I was in medical school. I have to admit though, that todays equipment sounds better but is not necessarily built better. That old 40wpc amp weighs a ton for what it is and its build quality is excellent. They just don't makem like that any more except on high end equipment. I think I paid $150 for that amp!

[Les Adams]

Gentlemen, there is room in our world for all to express opinion, but I believe it is polite to do so without condemning, insulting or dismissing opposing views.

I have been involved in hi-fi since the 1970's. I started out with two mono tape recorders using the internal valve amps to drive home made speakers to get stereo from my Garrard SP25 with Decca Deram Ceramic cartridge! I eventually ended up with a Quad 33/303, Thorens TD125 / Shure V15 III and Spendor BC1's that were later traded for JBL L100's (as I played mostly rock). I ran that system for many years, till the end of the 90's in fact when I started to upgrade and my current setup is listed below.

I was satistfied with the old system untill I explored the more modern equipment and discovered how much better is was..and still is! My Garrard 401 is a "vintage" turntable but I don't use it because it is old, I use it because it sounds good, if it didn't it would be on the same scrap heap I threw my JBL's on 6 years ago! BUT... Some people enjoy the "vintage" sound or just get pleasure from keeping the old gear running, just as many people enjoy owning and driving vintage cars. Even the owners of these vehicles will mostly admit that they do not compare technically with today's vehicles, but it gives them pleasure to drive them. Personally I don't get it, but what harm does their opinion do to me or you? None!

I drive a 3.2 BMW Z4M... would I ever go back to driving the Ford Cortina (Taurus) I dove in the 70's? Never, but some people love nostalgia and probably adore their old Ford like a baby and pobably look after it better than I do my BMW which will be traded in when I get bored with it!

Now, which of us is right or wrong? The answer is none of us. We are just different and I believe we should celebrate our differences rather than condemn or ridicule others for expressing an opinion or passion.

[SlumpBuster]

Gentlemen, there is room in our world for all to express opinion, but I believe it is polite to do so without condemning, insulting or dismissing opposing views.

but some people love nostalgia and probably adore their old Ford like a baby and pobably look after it better than I do my BMW


I couldn't disagree more. Some people absolutely need to be derided and dismissed. Starting with these people: http://dr_pyro.tripod.com/taurus/

[Rich-n-Texas]

This thread seems to have become a display case for people's vintage equipment. Maybe that was the original intent???

[GMichael]

If I displayed my vintage equipment I'd get banned.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Not if it's all tucked in and nobody can see it.

[Les Adams]

I couldn't disagree more. Some people absolutely need to be derided and dismissed. Starting with these people: http://dr_pyro.tripod.com/taurus/

Ok, I conceed. Point proven, you are right. :)

In my defence I will say that the Taurus I owned was considerably older and the previous model to the one in that picture. It was known as the MK3 Cortina in the UK, and is now (probably) a collectors item. I had a 1972 one in white! It had a 1600cc engine and did 0-60 after some considerable delay. It was the superior "XL" model that had a manual foot pump in the footwell to squirt water onto the windscreen! (My goodness this is like admitting to once owning a Tandy mini all in one system)

Please stop me now before I post pictures of myself wearing bright yellow flared trousers and a sleeveless afghan jacket!

[Les Adams]

Looks to me like he was in the same conference room as opposed to being on a first name basis with Mr. Fisher, Mr. Marantz & Mr. Bozak.

A serious question. Does anyone know if this Mr Bozak is "Louis Bozak" who made mono mixers for broadcast uses and public address systems and developed the CMA-10-2DL mixer which was the first commercial DJ mixing console as used at the infamous "Paradise Garage" club?

[E-Stat]

Does anyone know if this Mr Bozak is "Louis Bozak" who...
No. My guess is Rudy Bozak, the guy behind the big-box 50s high end speakers with no top end.

rw

[melvin walker]

No. My guess is Rudy Bozak, the guy behind the big-box 50s high end speakers with no top end.

rw

Bozak , Fisher , Lansing , Marantz , etc, Where pioneers in audio. The men who through hard work and untested ideas created the audio industry we enjoy today.
Most of the men young engineers worked for the giant Western Electric. These men took the ideas , dreams and with hard work and little money built an industry we now call audio.

Unlike car hobbyist audio hobbyist have little interest in the history of audio , as there are no audio clubs , ie. Porsche Club of North America.
The high end Bozak Concert Grands was smooth and detailed something most young listeners would not enjoy.
To built a Bozak Concert Grand today if one looked at how well it was built , would cost in excess of $15,000 per speaker.
One must remember all Bozak speakers large are small was covered with oiled walnut !
Even a $70.00 AR speaker was covered with what we call today premium wood veneers.

I have never met a car hobbyist who has never heard of Enzo Ferrari or Ferry Porsche.
It is sad that the names of men who pioneered audio has been forgotten.
I would AB any speaker system built today with a pair of Concert Grands , Lansing Hartsfield , Jensen Imperials , Electro-Voice Patricians , Tannoy Churchill's and even a pair of AR 3a's. I believe they will hold their own with any present speaker system in the $50.000 range.



The music classical , jazz , Broadway or pop such as Andy Williams , Sinatra or Nancy
Wilson etc, Music that these speakers were designed for not the loud non detailed music of today.
The new is better than the old ? What about a Stradivari violin ?

[Pat D]

Things do change with time. Around a hundred years ago, John Philip Sousa bemoaned the invention of recorded music. His complaint was that recordings would result in fewer people learning to play musical instruments. He was looking down his nose at the experience you relish.

And Sousa was right. In the old days, if you wanted music at home, you mostly had to do it yourself or hire it.

[melvin walker]

And Sousa was right. In the old days, if you wanted music at home, you mostly had to do it yourself or hire it.

That has nothing to do with the history of high fidelity. It is ironic that we as Americans no so little of our history , as in this case the history of high fidelity.
Saul Marantz and James Lansing is as important to audio as Enzo Farrari and Ferry Porsche is to high performance cars.

A 1968 Ferrari Daytona will outperform 98% of the cars today and a Bozak Concert will out perform 98% of the speakers today.
How many cars today can exceed 170 miles per hour ? How many speakers today can produce the unamplified bass today equal to a Concert Grand. ?

The cars that can out run a Daytona today will cost in the + $200,000 range.The Daytona new sold for $25,000 ! How many speakers today can produce the bass and power of a Concert Grand without a sub woofer ? The Concert Grand sold for $1000 each. It was also covered with walnut veneer at no exra cost.
in 1967 !
To produce a speaker today that matches the Concert Grands performance would cost in excess of $ 50.000 a pair ! without walnut veneer.

[bobsticks]

That has nothing to do with the history of high fidelity. It is ironic that we as Americans no so little of our history , as in this case the history of high fidelity.
Saul Marantz and James Lansing is as important to audio as Enzo Farrari and Ferry Porsche is to high performance cars.

A 1968 Ferrari Daytona will outperform 98% of the cars today and a Bozak Concert will out perform 98% of the speakers today.
How many cars today can exceed 170 miles per hour ? How many speakers today can produce the unamplified bass today equal to a Concert Grand. ?

The cars that can out run a Daytona today will cost in the + $200,000 range.The Daytona new sold for $25,000 ! How many speakers today can produce the bass and power of a Concert Grand without a sub woofer ? The Concert Grand sold for $1000 each. It was also covered with walnut veneer at no exra cost.
in 1967 !
To produce a speaker today that matches the Concert Grands performance would cost in excess of $ 50.000 a pair ! without walnut veneer.

So what is to be done?

[E-Stat]

Unlike car hobbyist audio hobbyist have little interest in the history of audio , as there are no audio clubs , ie. Porsche Club of North America.
I think you'll find those who are aware of audio's early days.


I would AB any speaker system built today with a pair of ...and even a pair of AR 3a's. I believe they will hold their own with any present speaker system in the $50.000 range.
What on earth have you been listening to for $50k that sounds like an AR-3a?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This thread is really disturbing to me. I reading everyone waxing nostolgic on me, yet when I talk to the audiophiles and speaker designers of the 70's, they say everything was not all that rosy. There were alot of bad speakers back then, just as there are now. There was some poorly made equipment back then, just like now. There were ALOT of bad recording back then, and there are ALOT of bad recordings now.

We do not hear in mono, we hear binaurally. A mono recording of a live event would be an acoustical distortion.

The Bozak speaker mentioned earlier was very good, but so is the new high end thiel speakers.

Things were not any better than they are today. More personal, perhaps, but not better. We tend to think that the time period we cherish was perfect, and any other time period is flawed in comparision. That is a distortion of the mind.

Alot of speakers back in the day measured pretty poorly, and distortion levels were very high. When you add in the tube amps of the day, what folks thought was more musical was just more dirty. Enough DBT has been done that has determined that ultra low distortion, and a flat frequency response makes a speaker sound good with most all musical material(and movie mixes as well). Most of the speakers back in the day were tailored to the genre of music the designer liked. That means it only sounded good with one type of music. I prefer speakers that sound good with all material, and that means recordings with warts sound like recordings with wart. I do not want a speaker who's tonal characteristic flatter a certain genre of music.

I just hope this thread is just a trip down memory lane, and not a bash on technology of today. If it is the latter, then it becomes a two way street, because I am going to tell you that most speakers designed today DO sound better than those thirty years ago. I think Floyd Toole would agree with me on that!

[melvin walker]

This thread is really disturbing to me. I reading everyone waxing nostolgic on me, yet when I talk to the audiophiles and speaker designers of the 70's, they say everything was not all that rosy. There were alot of bad speakers back then, just as there are now. There was some poorly made equipment back then, just like now. There were ALOT of bad recording back then, and there are ALOT of bad recordings now.

We do not hear in mono, we hear binaurally. A mono recording of a live event would be an acoustical distortion.

The Bozak speaker mentioned earlier was very good, but so is the new high end thiel speakers.

Things were not any better than they are today. More personal, perhaps, but not better. We tend to think that the time period we cherish was perfect, and any other time period is flawed in comparision. That is a distortion of the mind.

Alot of speakers back in the day measured pretty poorly, and distortion levels were very high. When you add in the tube amps of the day, what folks thought was more musical was just more dirty. Enough DBT has been done that has determined that ultra low distortion, and a flat frequency response makes a speaker sound good with most all musical material(and movie mixes as well). Most of the speakers back in the day were tailored to the genre of music the designer liked. That means it only sounded good with one type of music. I prefer speakers that sound good with all material, and that means recordings with warts sound like recordings with wart. I do not want a speaker who's tonal characteristic flatter a certain genre of music.

I just hope this thread is just a trip down memory lane, and not a bash on technology of today. If it is the latter, then it becomes a two way street, because I am going to tell you that most speakers designed today DO sound better than those thirty years ago. I think Floyd Toole would agree with me on that!

Have you A-B any of the speaker systems listed ? There are no speakers that sound good with all materials. Have you listen to a JBL Paragon ? or an Electro-Voice Patrician. Is a 50 year old Steinway Concert Grand piano inferior to a present Steinway Concert Grand ? How would you compare an 18th century Stradivari violin with one built today ?

The speakers I listed were high -end speakers , not the run of the mill speakers.
My point is that the high end speakers of pre 1970's will hold their own with high end speakers of today.
High end speakers built before 1970 did not need amplified sub woofers to achieve
detailed bass response !

There was bad speakers built pre 1970 and there are bad speakers built today , the only difference is there are more bad speakers built today and fewer audiophiles.
The absence of audio shows has not allowed present day audiophiles to preview many of the different speaker and audio systems today.
There are auto shows !

McIntosh was involved with the public pre 1980's. Mac held audio clinics , one could bring their Mac to the Mac clinic and have it brought up to spics without charge. Mac would test amps not built by McIntosh free !
Judging by your Japanese audio equipment , it would be hard to speak to a person when inquiring about your audio gear.

There is no bashing of today's audio equipment but a compartive analysis . No difference than comapring a Farrari Daytona to a Farrari Maranello.
The difference is we all hear different. I might add auto buffs may drive a Farrari Daytonta,
and compare it to a Maranello. What I am reading here is that few AR members has ever heard are seen a Jensen Imperial ! How would they know that the new speakers are better ? I will also add there are few audio magazines and fewer audiophiles ,most of the
few audio magazines left are having a hard time publishing , video is in audio declining.
The least important item in a Home Theatre system is the audio !



I

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Have you A-B any of the speaker systems listed ? There are no speakers that sound good with all materials. Have you listen to a JBL Paragon ? or an Electro-Voice Patrician. Is a 50 year old Steinway Concert Grand piano inferior to a present Steinway Concert Grand ? How would you compare an 18th century Stradivari violin with one built today ?

Has anyone A/B any of the speakers listed? Probably not, however that does not mean I cannot have a comparative opinion right? I have listen to the JBL Paragon, my uncle was a employee of JBL, and I also have heard the Patrician many years ago. Both very good sounding speakers, but no better than a Dunlavy SCV(which I own as well) or Thiel CS 3.7(which I recently heard). Your instrument comparisons really are quite irrelevant since the instruments condition and maintainence plays a role in how they sound.


The speakers I listed were high -end speakers , not the run of the mill speakers.

What is a run of the mill, and what is not is a matter of perspective. One mans floor is another mans ceiling.


My point is that the high end speakers of pre 1970's will hold their own with high end speakers of today.

Subjectively speaking, you are probably right. Objectively through measurements its not even close. The instruments for achieving great performance (anechoic chambers, MLSSA measurements, shufflers, measuring devices) are far more sophisticated today than they were back then. When you combine this with acoustical and listening studies conducted by Floyd Toole, John Dunlavy it is far easy to create a very good sounding high end speaker today than it was pre 1970. I heard Dr. Toole say that himself.



High end speakers built before 1970 did not need amplified sub woofers to achieve
detailed bass response !

That would be SOME high end speakers built before 1970 did not need dedicated subwoofers for detailed bass response. However, what we know about room acoustics tells us that acheiving a flat in room bass response WITHOUT a subwoofer is extremely difficult to do without EQ and acoustical treatment. Dedicated subwoofers allow a speaker to play louder(improve dynamics), and with lower distortion(which makes the system sound clean), and puts the driver where it performs the best(flattest response, lowest distortion) Also keep in mind the SCV, JM focal electra and Grand Utopia, Wilson Alexandra, Revel Concerta, legacy audio whisper(and really I could go on) do not require subwoofers as well. All of these speakers probably have a flatter response, lower distortion, and better imaging because of advances in driver technology and controlled sound dispersion.


There was bad speakers built pre 1970 and there are bad speakers built today , the only difference is there are more bad speakers built today and fewer audiophiles.

This is a blanket statement that has no point of fact. There may be fewer audiophiles, but Floyd Toole would argue you to the floor about the amount of bad speakers today versus yesterday.


The absence of audio shows has not allowed present day audiophiles to preview many of the different speaker and audio systems today.

I attended 7 audio shows last year alone, so the use of the word "absence" would only describe your lack of attending them, not that they do not exist.



McIntosh was involved with the public pre 1980's. Mac held audio clinics , one could bring their Mac to the Mac clinic and have it brought up to spics without charge. Mac would test amps not built by McIntosh free !
Judging by your Japanese audio equipment , it would be hard to speak to a person when inquiring about your audio gear.

First, people who enjoy good equipment do not speak about it, they listen to it. My japanese audio equipment has been redesigned and upgraded by John Curl, so aside from my receiver(which is really just a pre-pro) there is more that meets the ear than nameplate would allude to.

Secondly, we have a place here in the bay area called the perfect sound. Alot of high end speaker and amp designers hold workshops and lectures there. This goes for Rives Audio, and several other high end shops all over this country. These lectures and workshops you have to actually have to seek out, they are not going to send an announcement or an invite.


There is no bashing of today's audio equipment but a compartive analysis . No difference than comapring a Farrari Daytona to a Farrari Maranello.
The difference is we all hear different. I might add auto buffs may drive a Farrari Daytonta,
and compare it to a Maranello. What I am reading here is that few AR members has ever heard are seen a Jensen Imperial ! How would they know that the new speakers are better ? I will also add there are few audio magazines and fewer audiophiles ,most of the
few audio magazines left are having a hard time publishing , video is in audio declining.
The least important item in a Home Theatre system is the audio !

Your comparative analysis is one sided and not particularly objective. The amount of magazines or self proclaimed audiophiles is no gauge of equipment quality. Tying the two together is at best disengenious. Alot of high end magazines are folding up because of the outrageous claims they have made regarding amps, cables and speakers. Claims that have been later debuked and disproved. High end audio is in decline because much of what is being sold is severely overpriced. There are way too many statement pieces, and not enough products with a equal price to performance value.

[blackraven]

Sir Terrance, I have to agree with what you say. Especially over price equipment making false claims and the fact that there is high end equipment using low quality components that you see in low end audio equipment. There was an article that I read a few years ago where they looked inside various brands of high end audio equipment and you would poop your pants if you saw the results. Many of these comapanies were using low quality components and charging thousands of dollars.

I also agree with your assessment of audio magazines. You never see a bad review because they would never be allowed to review a company's equipment. In addition, these magazines rarely review budget equipment for tthe very day consumer. I find it rediculous that many of the reviewsare for equiment costing thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars that less than 1% of the population here in the US can afford, including me who is in the top 1% of income earned in the US today! Just browse the stereophile magazine forums and look at the complaints of subscribers complaining of there being to many high end reviews. Many are cancelling their subscriptions.

[O'Shag]

"In my defence I will say that the Taurus I owned was considerably older and the previous model to the one in that picture. It was known as the MK3 Cortina in the UK, and is now (probably) a collectors item. I had a 1972 one in white! It had a 1600cc engine and did 0-60 after some considerable delay. It was the superior "XL" model that had a manual foot pump in the footwell to squirt water onto the windscreen! (My goodness this is like admitting to once owning a Tandy mini all in one system)"


I don't know Les,

you should be darn proud to have owned the 1600E.

The Z4M is a wonderful car. I test drove one a few weeks ago at a showroom and almost bought it, I was that impressed. It was in a beautiful metallic taupe colour with red leather interior. I also looked at a Porche Boxter special edition in that peculiar shade of yellow a la GT3 and black painted alloys and trim. I ended up choosing the Mercedes SLK 350 convertible Special Edition (only 200 made) in black on black. I just couldn't get over the crazy cool way the hard-top hood folds into the trunk, or how warm the car keeps you even when its cold and the top is down.

And yet, one of the cars my Dad owned when I was a whippersnapper was The Ford Cortina 1600E in gold and black. What a car. I think I would get just as much of a kick out of driving around in that as in the Merc, despite a huge performance and technology difference. I've heard the Garrard 401 in a friends system by the way, and I;ve got to say it sounds pretty darn good even though its yonks and yonks old. It is however, heavily modified.

[mlsstl]

Just a quick comment that a comparison between musical instruments and stereo equipment is not a valid analogy.

Musical instruments make original music. The instrument builders search for pleasant, distinctive distortions, harmonics, and abnormal frequency response. There is not a broad call for musical instruments that generate perfect sine waves. Steinways and Stradivarius violins are prized for their unique distortions, not their lack thereof.

The goal of musical equipment is quite the opposite. One wants the speakers and the other reproduction equipment to do only that - reproduce what is on the recording without adding anything of its own or leaving anything off. That is quite different from what wants of a musical instrument.

[melvin walker]

Just a quick comment that a comparison between musical instruments and stereo equipment is not a valid analogy.

Musical instruments make original music. The instrument builders search for pleasant, distinctive distortions, harmonics, and abnormal frequency response. There is not a broad call for musical instruments that generate perfect sine waves. Steinways and Stradivarius violins are prized for their unique distortions, not their lack thereof.

The goal of musical equipment is quite the opposite. One wants the speakers and the other reproduction equipment to do only that - reproduce what is on the recording without adding anything of its own or leaving anything off. That is quite different from what wants of a musical instrument.

Your point is well taken , audio equipment companies objective is to how best to fool the ear. A speaker is not a Stradivarius violin , or a Steinway piano. There is no perfect speaker. In audio we are dealing with physics especially with a speaker.
With high end audio the results are subjective.

No to people hear the same . Equipment can test great on instruments and sound very different to the ear. An example the Marantz 10 B was considered the best FM tuner ever built.
Many tuners tested better on the bench , but could not match the 10B in listening test.
In pianos , there are also differences , some pianist prefer the Baldwin , others the Steinway and even others the Bosendorfer. Which is better ? again the answer is subjective.
is audio equipment any different ? whether built today are 57 years ago ? Are we so arrogant to believe that because it is new it is better ?

The quality of the pianos listed above is impeccable. though pianos. Each one has a different sound. The ear is very different than a piece of test equipment.
Is a Borendorfer piano built 50 years ago inferior to one built today.?
The phrase " They don't build them as good as they did years ago" applies in some cases. Musical instruments and high end audio may be those cases.

[melvin walker]

Has anyone A/B any of the speakers listed? Probably not, however that does not mean I cannot have a comparative opinion right? I have listen to the JBL Paragon, my uncle was a employee of JBL, and I also have heard the Patrician many years ago. Both very good sounding speakers, but no better than a Dunlavy SCV(which I own as well) or Thiel CS 3.7(which I recently heard). Your instrument comparisons really are quite irrelevant since the instruments condition and maintainence plays a role in how they sound.



What is a run of the mill, and what is not is a matter of perspective. One mans floor is another mans ceiling.



Subjectively speaking, you are probably right. Objectively through measurements its not even close. The instruments for achieving great performance (anechoic chambers, MLSSA measurements, shufflers, measuring devices) are far more sophisticated today than they were back then. When you combine this with acoustical and listening studies conducted by Floyd Toole, John Dunlavy it is far easy to create a very good sounding high end speaker today than it was pre 1970. I heard Dr. Toole say that himself.




That would be SOME high end speakers built before 1970 did not need dedicated subwoofers for detailed bass response. However, what we know about room acoustics tells us that acheiving a flat in room bass response WITHOUT a subwoofer is extremely difficult to do without EQ and acoustical treatment. Dedicated subwoofers allow a speaker to play louder(improve dynamics), and with lower distortion(which makes the system sound clean), and puts the driver where it performs the best(flattest response, lowest distortion) Also keep in mind the SCV, JM focal electra and Grand Utopia, Wilson Alexandra, Revel Concerta, legacy audio whisper(and really I could go on) do not require subwoofers as well. All of these speakers probably have a flatter response, lower distortion, and better imaging because of advances in driver technology and controlled sound dispersion.



This is a blanket statement that has no point of fact. There may be fewer audiophiles, but Floyd Toole would argue you to the floor about the amount of bad speakers today versus yesterday.



I attended 7 audio shows last year alone, so the use of the word "absence" would only describe your lack of attending them, not that they do not exist.




First, people who enjoy good equipment do not speak about it, they listen to it. My japanese audio equipment has been redesigned and upgraded by John Curl, so aside from my receiver(which is really just a pre-pro) there is more that meets the ear than nameplate would allude to.

Secondly, we have a place here in the bay area called the perfect sound. Alot of high end speaker and amp designers hold workshops and lectures there. This goes for Rives Audio, and several other high end shops all over this country. These lectures and workshops you have to actually have to seek out, they are not going to send an announcement or an invite.



Your comparative analysis is one sided and not particularly objective. The amount of magazines or self proclaimed audiophiles is no gauge of equipment quality. Tying the two together is at best disengenious. Alot of high end magazines are folding up because of the outrageous claims they have made regarding amps, cables and speakers. Claims that have been later debuked and disproved. High end audio is in decline because much of what is being sold is severely overpriced. There are way too many statement pieces, and not enough products with a equal price to performance value.

Most audiophiles do not live in the Bay area. I am not aware of Dr. Toole , what is his background in audio ? Run of the mill means average , not high end. A Ferrari are Mercedes 500 is high end. A Corvette or Lexus is run of the mill.
Audio magazines serve as an aid in one making an informed decision.

I would think that the reasons for the decline of the audiophiles is that we have today electronic shows not audio shows. There is very little interest in audio today.
I am not aware of Rives Audio. Are you comparing Rives Audio with the McIntosh
clinics that traveled to every major city in America testing Macks as well as other amps free of charge for more than 35 years ? I am a midwesterner , the Bay area is 1800
miles away !

Why buy Japanese audio equipment to begin with ? The Japanese does not have a history of building high end audio , are cars , maybe TV's.
Does John Curl have the research and development monies to compete with the major high end manufactures who build high end audio today ?
One of the main reason many of the older high end audio companies no longer exist is because of the lack of research and development money.

Objective are not as you see it , that is my opinion regarding the issue of comparing today's high end speakers to yesterday's high end speakers. I respect you position on the issue of audio , although I do not agree with much of it.
I will add finally there has been many improvements in electronic , not so with speakers.
Again that is my position.

[Bernd]

Why buy Japanese audio equipment to begin with ? The Japanese does not have a history of building high end audio , are cars , maybe TV's.

You're at it again with the big sweep.

Kondo ?

Koetsu ?

Zanden ?

Micro Seiki ?

And many many one man operations who build outstanding equipment and are very passionate about what they do.

I thought you waved us all goodbye. Have I missed something?

Peace

:16:

[basite]

and what about these:

luxman? they exist since 1925, long before most american brands. even befor JBL and Mcintosh. I believe they have a history in audio :)
accuphase?

Wavac?


oh melvin. you typed something about comparing Rives Audio with Mcintosh clinics...
they are a completely different thing though...

and while I know John curl is a great designer, you might not know him directly...
He worked (or works) for parasound, parasound is new, but before there was parasound, there was Concept (I believe you do know them), then concept disappeared, and parsound appeared, actually being from the same people, just new visions.

Rives Audio is a company that does room acoustics (many professional, 'high end' studios use their acoustic solutions today), so you can't really compare them...

btw, I never really asked, but what version of the MC275 do you have?

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[melvin walker]

and what about these:

luxman? they exist since 1925, long before most american brands. even befor JBL and Mcintosh. I believe they have a history in audio :)
accuphase?

Wavac?


oh melvin. you typed something about comparing Rives Audio with Mcintosh clinics...
they are a completely different thing though...

and while I know John curl is a great designer, you might not know him directly...
He worked (or works) for parasound, parasound is new, but before there was parasound, there was Concept (I believe you do know them), then concept disappeared, and parsound appeared, actually being from the same people, just new visions.

Rives Audio is a company that does room acoustics (many professional, 'high end' studios use their acoustic solutions today), so you can't really compare them...

btw, I never really asked, but what version of the MC275 do you have?



Keep them spinning,
Bert.

I purchased my MC275 in 1963 , Marantz 7C 1963 , Marantz 10B 1970 , Transcriptor TT
1977 , SME series 11 tone arm 1971 , Shure V1511 cartridge 1977 , JBL Hartsfields
1966 , replaced the 077 tweeters with 175 DLH IN 1971.
Added a Sony CDP C701ES CD changer later.
The electronic components are housed in a custom Brazilay black walnut cabinet , model 910. Which is 7 feet long , 30 inches high , and 18 inches deep.

My other three audio systems were purchased after 1970. I did not list one of the speakers that is used in my home theatre system AR 2a's. Which will be replaced soon with AR3a's.
Thanks for your interest.

[markw]

I am not aware of Dr. Toole , what is his background in audio ? you're kidding, right?

Frankly, with that gap in knowledge I strongly doubt your ability to appreciate the history of audio at all. that's like claiming to know the history of the U.S and not knowing who Abraham Lincoln is.

[melvin walker]

you're kidding, right?

Frankly, with that gap in knowledge I strongly doubt your ability to appreciate the history of audio at all. that's like claiming to know the history of the U.S and not knowing who Abraham Lincoln is.

Are you comparing Abraham Lincoln and his contribution to American history with Dr. Toole and his contributions to audio ?
There are those that are civil war specialist , The American Revolution specialist , World War One specialist etc. Generally no one specializes in all three.

In terms of contributions can you really compare Dr. Toole to James B. Lansing? or Avery Fisher ?.
No more than you can compare President Lincoln to President Woodrow Wilson or President Bill Clinton
All three are Presidents but in the case of President Bill Clinton , he will be remembered more for being the only elected President impeached !

I am not aware of Dr. Poole , should I be ? what was his contributions to audio ?
I hope we all are aware of Abraham Lincoln's contribution.

[E-Stat]

A speaker is not a Stradivarius violin...
Exactly. By the time Tony was making them, woodworking was a mature, thousands year old technology. That is most certainly not the case with driver and crossover electronics technology. Nobody uses electrolytics in the signal path any more, Melvin. Nor do they use noisy 5% carbon film resistors.


An example the Marantz 10 B was considered the best FM tuner ever built.
Until, of course Dick Sequerra updated his design a decade later.


Are we so arrogant to believe that because it is new it is better ?
No, the only reason we believe the best of todays designs are better is because they are better.

Don't get me wrong, there's some very nice vintage gear made. My secondary music system is vintage based (though not from the 50s). If you favor the purity of full range electrostatics like I do, today's materials technology allows for much higher bias voltages and more dependable operation. Toroidal transformers were not available forty years ago. Results? Wider bandwidth in both directions and greater resolution. My favorite vintage speaker (formerly owned by a friend) is a double pair of KLH-9s. Dr. West of Sound Lab , however, has vastly improved Arthur Janszen's design (his job at Electronics Industries back in the 70s was to make the original Janszen tweeter more reliable). As compared with today's best, however, it falls short.

Since you like car analogies, the difference is like your '68 Daytona vs. a F430 Scuderia. The difference in track times between those would be comical. While the Daytona can reach 170 in a straight line, cornering and braking capability has improved significantly in those intervening decades. They didn't use carbon fiber brakes in 1968. Similarly, my 2001 Honda S2000 will outperform a 70's 246 Dino in every category, except panache and resale. More power per liter (120 vs. 82), better cornering (0.9 G vs. 0.84), 0-60 acceleration (5.2 seconds vs.7.3), etc.

I'm still curious as to the mysterious $50,000 speaker you heard that sounds like an AR-3. As for me, I prefer double Advents over the 3s. You can buy either today for about $400 and end up spending only another $50 or so updating the crossovers.

rw

[mlsstl]

I am not aware of Dr. Poole (sic), should I be ?

Google is your friend.

That is the problem with one-upsmanship and the temptation to lecture others as to what they should know. It just invites "gotcha" responses.

[E-Stat]

Are you comparing Rives Audio with the McIntosh
clinics that traveled to every major city in America testing Macks as well as other amps free of charge for more than 35 years ?
Rives Audio is devoted to improving an often forgotten, yet very important component in an audio system, regardless of epoch - the room. As for the amp clinics, you realize those were marketing events, right? Good 'ol Dave O'Brien tested my AR integrated back in '72 and handed me the lovely, but completely useless THD chart. The clinics died out when everyone figured out THD was an irrelevant metric and other companies (like Crown) outperformed them in the specsmanship.


...that is my opinion regarding the issue of comparing today's high end speakers to yesterday's high end speakers. I respect you position on the issue of audio , although I do not agree with much of it.
Fine. In your opinion, what is the best sounding modern speaker on which you make this determination?

rw

[markw]

Are you comparing Abraham Lincoln and his contribution to American history with Dr. Toole and his contributions to audio ?
There are those that are civil war specialist , The American Revolution specialist , World War One specialist etc. Generally no one specializes in all three.

In terms of contributions can you really compare Dr. Toole to James B. Lansing? or Avery Fisher ?.
No more than you can compare President Lincoln to President Woodrow Wilson or President Bill Clinton
All three are Presidents but in the case of President Bill Clinton , he will be remembered more for being the only elected President impeached !

I am not aware of Dr. Poole , should I be ? what was his contributions to audio ?
I hope we all are aware of Abraham Lincoln's contribution.In a sense, yes. Obviously you haven't a clue as to this persons great contributions to the hobby and that's a shame for one who claims to be as learned as you. Apparantly, if they didn't exist before 1965 and/or you haven't heard of them they don't exist.

All this does is point out the glaring inconsistencies in what/who you consider important figures in the development of audio and what the rest of the world sees as major contributors.

A lot has happened in this hobby since JFK was president and you really owe it to yourself to investigate what happened since then before preaching at us. Your credibility is being stretched to the breaking point.

[frenchmon]

I purchased my MC275 in 1963 , Marantz 7C 1963 , Marantz 10B 1970 , Transcriptor TT
1977 , SME series 11 tone arm 1971 , Shure V1511 cartridge 1977 , JBL Hartsfields
1966 , replaced the 077 tweeters with 175 DLH IN 1971.
Added a Sony CDP C701ES CD changer later.
The electronic components are housed in a custom Brazilay black walnut cabinet , model 910. Which is 7 feet long , 30 inches high , and 18 inches deep.

My other three audio systems were purchased after 1970. I did not list one of the speakers that is used in my home theatre system AR 2a's. Which will be replaced soon with AR3a's.
Thanks for your interest.

Can you post pictures of your gear?

frenchmon

[basite]

Can you post pictures of your gear?

frenchmon


yeah, it sure is an impressive system, if you have pictures, feel free to post them Melvin...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[melvin walker]

In a sense, yes. Obviously you haven't a clue as to this persons great contributions to the hobby and that's a shame for one who claims to be as learned as you. Apparantly, if they didn't exist before 1965 and/or you haven't heard of them they don't exist.

All this does is point out the glaring inconsistencies in what/who you consider important figures in the development of audio and what the rest of the world sees as major contributors.

A lot has happened in this hobby since JFK was president and you really owe it to yourself to investigate what happened since then before preaching at us. Your credibility is being stretched to the breaking point.

This site is not about me sir, but audio. There have been many contributors to audio over the past 60+ years. To many to list on this post. I referred to the pioneers of audio.
I never claimed anything , you made assumptions.
I don't know if you can make a statement as to the knowledge of audio by the rest of the world.

it appears that you are unable to discuss audio but engage in personal analysis of members of this forum. I have made a mistake by answering your post.
The subject is audio not your analysis of me !

[melvin walker]

Rives Audio is devoted to improving an often forgotten, yet very important component in an audio system, regardless of epoch - the room. As for the amp clinics, you realize those were marketing events, right? Good 'ol Dave O'Brien tested my AR integrated back in '72 and handed me the lovely, but completely useless THD chart. The clinics died out when everyone figured out THD was an irrelevant metric and other companies (like Crown) outperformed them in the specsmanship.


Fine. In your opinion, what is the best sounding modern speaker on which you make this determination?

rw

What is the definition of a modern speaker ?
Did you ever attend a McIntosh clinic ? Mcintosh did not test integrated amps only separates.
Their clinics were well received and praised by audio magazines and audiophiles McIntosh of that era had an excellent reputation.

Of course testing amps free of charge was a marketing ploy. Marketing is a part of doing business. Many of the McIntosh amps and tuners are still around , still performing.
McIntosh amps and tuners has maintained their value for many years. Example a Mac
MC275 sells for over $4000.00 used , it sold new for only $440.00. Only Marantz amps and tuners can match Mac in resale value.

Audio as in any industry is devoted to it's stock holders , turning a profit. There were companies
that did room testing in the 1960's. I have never heard it done with an integrated amp. Usually those that expressed an interest in spending the money to optimize their stereo
system were audiophiles and audiophiles used separates.
Times have changed.

[melvin walker]

yeah, it sure is an impressive system, if you have pictures, feel free to post them Melvin...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

I shall , at this point The only pictures I have of my stereo systems is for insurance purpose.
First I need to learn how to send pictures over the internet. Computers are not a hobby of mine.

[basite]

I shall , at this point The only pictures I have of my stereo systems is for insurance purpose.
First I need to learn how to send pictures over the internet. Computers are not a hobby of mine.


if you want help, send me a PM, or just ask it in a (or in this) thread :)

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[melvin walker]

Exactly. By the time Tony was making them, woodworking was a mature, thousands year old technology. That is most certainly not the case with driver and crossover electronics technology. Nobody uses electrolytics in the signal path any more, Melvin. Nor do they use noisy 5% carbon film resistors.


Until, of course Dick Sequerra updated his design a decade later.


No, the only reason we believe the best of todays designs are better is because they are better.

Don't get me wrong, there's some very nice vintage gear made. My secondary music system is vintage based (though not from the 50s). If you favor the purity of full range electrostatics like I do, today's materials technology allows for much higher bias voltages and more dependable operation. Toroidal transformers were not available forty years ago. Results? Wider bandwidth in both directions and greater resolution. My favorite vintage speaker (formerly owned by a friend) is a double pair of KLH-9s. Dr. West of Sound Lab , however, has vastly improved Arthur Janszen's design (his job at Electronics Industries back in the 70s was to make the original Janszen tweeter more reliable). As compared with today's best, however, it falls short.

Since you like car analogies, the difference is like your '68 Daytona vs. a F430 Scuderia. The difference in track times between those would be comical. While the Daytona can reach 170 in a straight line, cornering and braking capability has improved significantly in those intervening decades. They didn't use carbon fiber brakes in 1968. Similarly, my 2001 Honda S2000 will outperform a 70's 246 Dino in every category, except panache and resale. More power per liter (120 vs. 82), better cornering (0.9 G vs. 0.84), 0-60 acceleration (5.2 seconds vs.7.3), etc.

I'm still curious as to the mysterious $50,000 speaker you heard that sounds like an AR-3. As for me, I prefer double Advents over the 3s. You can buy either today for about $400 and end up spending only another $50 or so updating the crossovers.

rw

A Dino is not a Ferrari. A Daytona is to be compared with a Ferrari Maranello , both front engined and designed for the street.
To compare a Honda with a Ferrari is unusual , I thought one would compare a Honda with a Toyota.
Honda did built an Acura NSX a very capable high end sports car.

I drive a BMW 850csi , the car that replaced the 850's the 650's are newer and cheaper
$100,000 + vs $75,000 is an example were economics play a major role in the selling and marketing of an item.
The magazine BMW Car when testing the than 645ci and the 850i an older 850 than
the one I drive found the 15 year old car superior in performance !
The 1995 850csi with limiters removed can reach speeds of 190 miles per hour.

BMW found that building a V12 380 horsepower coupe had a very small market. The 645
ie, 650 made better sense from a sales stand point. Mercedes also dropped it's V12 coupe , Porsche did the same with it's 928 8 cylinder coupe.
My point is any company can build a great car or great speaker , the question is will it sell ? A BMW V12 Coupe today would cost the consumer in excess of $150,000 .
The BMW V12 760 sedan sells for about $130,000 today. A coupe would be more than $150,000.

My point is that in today's consumer market it is very easy to market an item be it audio are cars and sell it as better than an earlier model. Cost is a major problem today.
What would it cost to build a Electro-Voice Patrician today ?
Could it sell at that price ?
Is it any different with the problem that BMW , Mercedes and Porsche faced.
I might also add that the Accra NSX was discontinued because of consumer indifference.
There are few high end consumers that is willing to pay $85,000 for a Honda , no matter how good it is . Image is everything. (smile)

[E-Stat]

What is the definition of a modern speaker ?
How about something one could purchase today? What was your definition when you claimed that a number of 50s and 60s vintage speakers could match the performance of modern ones?


Did you ever attend a McIntosh clinic ? Mcintosh did not test integrated amps only separates.
I thought my previous post was clear. Yes, I took mine to High Fidelity SSS in Atlanta to a clinic back in 1972 and Dave O' Brien (you met him at one, didn't you?) performed the test. Here's a reminder of what he looks like: Dave (http://www.roger-russell.com/clinics.htm).



Mcintosh did not test integrated amps only separates.
I thought I was clear on that point as well. I took my AR Integrated amp and Dave tested it. He handed me the THD chart. It met the original distortion spec at full power. As an aside, the problem with the AR amp is they were class B designs and lost resolution at low power.


Only Marantz amps and tuners can match Mac in resale value.
Actually, there are other brands like Audio Research that do as well.


MC275 sells for over $4000.00 used , it sold new for only $440.00.
The reissued model retails for $3900. If you're interested in another pair, there are two on Audiogon for $2500 and a new-in-box one for $2950.


There were companies that did room testing in the 1960's. I have never heard it done with an integrated amp.
I'm not exactly sure of your connection between room treatments and integrated amps. If you're referring to Rives, they have nothing to do with amps per se. It is all about treating a room for better acoustics. I use a small forest of bass traps, some wall panels, and fake ficus trees in my main room to control the room modes. As a result, I get extremely smooth bass response without having to resort to active EQ.


Usually those that expressed an interest in spending the money to optimize their stereo system were audiophiles and audiophiles used separates. Times have changed.
No, I believe you are still correct about separates. The AR was the only integrated I ever owned. Bought it when I was 15. When I was 17, I moved to a Harman-Kardon Citation 11 and Crown D-150 amp. I mentioned it only in context of the Mac clinics.

You have some superb gear that many a collector would love to own.

rw

[E-Stat]

A Dino is not a Ferrari.
Dino Ferraris were named after Enzo's son. Click here for info (http://www.sportscarmarket.com/profiles/2001/April/Ferrari/)


A Daytona is to be compared with a Ferrari Maranello , both front engined and designed for the street.
Compare it with whichever model you please. A current Ferrari will considerably outperform an old one.


To compare a Honda with a Ferrari is unusual , I thought one would compare a Honda with a Toyota.
Indeed. You can get 70s Ferrari performance today in a similarly sized vehicle for $40k. The S2000 was designed by the same team as the NSX.


I drive a BMW 850csi
That's a fine touring coupe.


My point is any company can build a great car or great speaker , the question is will it sell ?
There are dozens of such speakers on today's market that sell quite well.


What would it cost to build a Electro-Voice Patrician today?
There are quite a few high end horn speakers on the market today. Look up Edgarhorn, Avant-Garde, etc. Here's the A-V Trio: Click here (http://www.avantgarde-usa.com/basshorns.html)


I might also add that the Accra NSX was discontinued because of consumer indifference.There are few high end consumers that is willing to pay $85,000 for a Honda , no matter how good it is . Image is everything. (smile)
Indifference and passing technology. The S2000 offered 95% of the performance for less than half the cost. The next generation NSX which is supposed to be released 2009-2010 will finally have a V-8 or V-10.

rw

[markw]

This site is not about me sir, but audio.I love how you always throw this out when you've been hoisted by your own petard. Face it, your ignorance was displayed for all to see.


There have been many contributors to audio over the past 60+ years. To many to list on this post. I referred to the pioneers of audio.Not everyone can be a pioneer but you tend to belittle those who refined the art. I suppose you see the Wright Brothers as the only HTA flying machine worth the time and effort to keep.



I never claimed anything , you made assumptions.Bull. You claim an unyeilding superiority ot knowledge about this subject and I simply pointed out hos lacking your knowledge is. ... and here you are, trying to make excuses for it.

Re-read your posts here. Either you're lying, a troll, or deep in the throes of dementia. ...or any combination thereof.


I don't know if you can make a statement as to the knowledge of audio by the rest of the world.Why noy? Yu don't have a problem spouting off your own greatness. Why can't I call you openly on it?


it appears that you are unable to discuss audio but engage in personal analysis of members of this forum. I have made a mistake by answering your post.Yeah, but you can't resist trying to wriggle out of your own damning statements, can you?


The subject is audio not your analysis of me !Threads can take several turns asthe posters see fit. It's not about cars or shoes either but you don't have a problem interjecting that into the mix, do you?

TTFN, denmented old troll. Take some time to catch up on the history of this hobby in the last forty or so years. You might be surprised..

[melvin walker]

Dino Ferraris were named after Enzio's son. Click here for info (http://www.sportscarmarket.com/profiles/2001/April/Ferrari/)


Compare it with whichever model you please. A current Ferrari will considerably outperform an old one.


Indeed. You can get 70s Ferrari performance today in a similarly sized vehicle for $40k. The S2000 was designed by the same team as the NSX.


That's a fine touring coupe.


There are dozens of such speakers on today's market that sell quite well.


There are quite a few high end horn speakers on the market today. Look up Edgarhorn, Avant-Garde, etc. Here's the A-V Trio: Click here (http://www.avantgarde-usa.com/basshorns.html)


Indifference and passing technology. The S2000 offered 95% of the performance for less than half the cost. The next generation NSX which is supposed to be released 2009-2010 will finally have a V-8 or V-10.

rw

A Timex keeps time as well as a Rolex. To compare the two is nonsense. They are marketed to a very different consumer.
A Honda compared to a Ferrari , now there is a stretch. I think that an Electro-Voice speaker is a modern speaker, would I be forced to define modern.

Will a newer Ferrari outperform an older one ? of course. Will a new violin out perform an older one yes and no. Cars and audio are quite different, especially speakers. Electronics yes , newer electronics will out perform older electronics. even older tube amps.


The high end speaker business has been in decline for years. Many of the high end audio companies has either gone out of business are have been absorbed by multi national corp. You are correct Audio Research does have excellent used prices.
Audio Research is a very recent company compared to Marantz and McIntosh.

As for as Honda is concerned , it is a very good car. I have never owned a Japanese car.
But the Japanese cars I have driven appear to lack character. A Jaguar or Porsche have character , they are much different from each other. Japanese while building excellent cars appear to all have the same character , much as a Cadillac and a Buick.

Interesting point and counterpoint. I respect your positions on many of the issues discussed.

[melvin walker]

I love how you always throw this out when you've been hoisted by your own petard. Face it, your ignorance was displayed for all to see.

Not everyone can be a pioneer but you tend to belittle those who refined the art. I suppose you see the Wright Brothers as the only HTA flying machine worth the time and effort to keep.


Bull. You claim an unyeilding superiority ot knowledge about this subject and I simply pointed out hos lacking your knowledge is. ... and here you are, trying to make excuses for it.

Re-read your posts here. Either you're lying, a troll, or deep in the throes of dementia. ...or any combination thereof.

Why noy? Yu don't have a problem spouting off your own greatness. Why can't I call you openly on it?

Yeah, but you can't resist trying to wriggle out of your own damning statements, can you?

Threads can take several turns asthe posters see fit. It's not about cars or shoes either but you don't have a problem interjecting that into the mix, do you?

TTFN, denmented old troll. Take some time to catch up on the history of this hobby in the last forty or so years. You might be surprised..

I will no longer read are respond to your post. I don't know who you are nor do I care.
Again the issue is audio , not me.

[E-Stat]

Audio Research is a very recent company compared to Marantz and McIntosh.
Yes. ARC is only about forty years old. Unlike the other two, however, it has continued to make state-of-the-art products since its inception. The current REF 3 line stage and 610T amp are among the best available today. Marantz, on the other hand, was purchased by Superscope and made only receivers for a long while. Then they disappeared before another company started making products with that name again. McIntosh lost its mojo in the 70s and 80s producing some mediocre sounding products. When they first started focusing on the gee-whiz back lit glass light show (like the C-26), the sound quality went down hill. Recently, however, they have reintroduced both tube amps and preamps and now make some serious high end products.


I have never owned a Japanese car...Japanese while building excellent cars appear to all have the same character , much as a Cadillac and a Buick.
Hmmm. So you never owned or driven a Honda, yet know its character? Soichiro Honda was much like Enzo Ferrari in that he loved racing. Like Enzo, he raced himself in his early years. Honda has been involved in Formula One automobile racing since 1964. Similarly, they have been involved with Grand Prix motorcycle racing for as long. The S2000 is a pure sports car with exceptional performance. You say Porsche and BMW have character. Well, this Japanese sports car continues to match or outperform equivalent models from both companies. If you have a few moments, here's (http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/6846/2003-audi-tt-v-2003-bmw-z4-v-2003-honda-s2000-v-2003-nissan-350z-v-2003-porsche-boxster.html) an interesting read.


Interesting point and counterpoint. I respect your positions on many of the issues discussed.
Thank you. I think you'll find there are indeed others who share you love of the history behind both audio and automobiles. The performance levels of neither pursuit, however, has stood still for the past several decades.

rw

[basite]

McIntosh lost its mojo in the 70s and 80s producing some mediocre sounding products. When they first started focusing on the gee-whiz back lit glass light show (like the C-26), the sound quality went down hill. Recently, however, they have reintroduced both tube amps and preamps and now make some serious high end products.

I think Mcintosh was in somekind of a struggle going from tubes to SS. In the late 80's they were building serious high end gear again, both Tube and SS. Today Mcintosh is back what it used to be, a world class product.



Thank you. I think you'll find there are indeed others who share you love of the history behind both audio and automobiles. The performance levels of neither pursuit, however, has stood still for the past several decades.

rw

I'm with you on that. :)

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[mlsstl]

This is quite the thread. Snob lists about who knew who when; where baseball players might live; endless discussions about cars (with nary a word about the stereo systems in them); some bashing of elected politicians; 401k insults (can't say I've seen those before); allegations of bullying and carpetbaggery; repeated complaints from some that certain comments have nothing to do with audio when the complainer himself has repeatedly strayed far from the subject and so on. Why even JFK and Abraham Lincoln have been highlighted.

Wonder how long it'll be before Dr. Phil and Britany Spears gets discussed in depth...

[markw]

I will no longer read are respond to your post. I don't know who you are nor do I care.
Again the issue is audio , not me.I will not make the same promise, as if yours are to be taken seriously. Didn't you say you were through with this site a week or so ago?

Don't give me any reason to respond and I won't. As I've said many times in the past, I can't resist a straight line.

And, I pretty much told you who I was and some of my experiences and exposure to this hobby in my first post in this thread. That's more than you ever did,

Simply put, you're lost in the past and couldn't keep up with the changes.

My mom was like that, I went crazy keeping her old drum type TV working in her later years because she couldn't adapt to sets with a remote control. Of course, she had dementia and could rattle off minute details about the 40's and 50's but nothing about more current times.

Remind you of anyone here?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Good Lord! Are you still at it Melvin?

OH! Did I just curse?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Good Lord! Are you still at it Melvin?

OH! Did I just curse?

Yes you did, and I am going to worsh your mouth out for it. Red chicklet for you potty mouth!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Most audiophiles do not live in the Bay area.

Not really sure this point is related to the overall discussion, but you are correct. Where do most of the audiophiles live is a big mystery since they do not all clutter together.




I am not aware of Dr. Toole , what is his background in audio?

This explains so much. You have no knowledge of a person that has profoundly changed the way speakers are made, how they are measured, and created the criteria based on listening test of thousands of people that defines what makes speakers sound good, and what makes them sound bad. He is also one of the foremost experts on small room acoustics and speaker/room interactivity, having written so many white papers on the subject that he could open his own public library. He has designed speakers back in the 60's as well as designed speakers today. And yes, his contribution to audio are much greater than both Lansing and Fisher.


Run of the mill means average , not high end. A Ferrari are Mercedes 500 is high end. A Corvette or Lexus is run of the mill.

Once again, you have made my point. To somebody other than you, a Lexus is high end, and so is a corvette. Either way, how one evalutes what is high end or not does not speak to quality, it just speaks to price of which the two have no correlation whatsoever.


Audio magazines serve as an aid in one making an informed decision.

Audio magazines also serve as a advertising platform for manufacturers. You give a bad review to a product, and you will never see said manufacturers dollars again. This creates a profound pressure to subjectively and postively review all the products advertised in order to save your revenue stream and magazine. Ask Richard Hardesty about the relationship as it relates to Widescreen Review. His honest, straight, and objective views based on science(rather than opinion) got him fired.


I would think that the reasons for the decline of the audiophiles is that we have today electronic shows not audio shows. There is very little interest in audio today.

The decline in audiophiles walks in line with the decline of high end in general. Too much snake oil, too many golden ears, too many statements that defy physics all refuted by science and DBT's. Does 3 meters of wire costing $10 dollars sound better than 3 meters costing $2,000? Measurements and DBT says no. Does a speaker that cost a mere $1,000 a pair sound as good as some costing $50,000? Absolutely. The value to performance of high end products is so out of skew it is almost a bad joke. The high end has become nothing more than the well heeled. No relevance to performance at all, but marketed to those who care about how much it cost rather than how good does it sound.


I am not aware of Rives Audio. Are you comparing Rives Audio with the McIntosh
clinics that traveled to every major city in America testing Macks as well as other amps free of charge for more than 35 years ? I am a midwesterner , the Bay area is 1800
miles away !

Rives audio is a company known world wide, not just in the bay area. Rives Audio is not even located in the Bay Area, it is located in the midwest. Isn't that where Iowa is?


Why buy Japanese audio equipment to begin with ? The Japanese does not have a history of building high end audio , are cars , maybe TV's.

Your ignorance is amusing. The Japanese have proven they can build anything they want. After all, they have created all of the audio and video formats for that last 37 years. As far as cars, I have no interest. Point a to point b is about all the interest I can muster. I have a hybrid SUV, and a two seat Hybrid Honda.

To answer your question about why buy Japanese equipment? Because when it comes to performance per dollar, they seem to do much better at equaling this out than companies like Wilson Audio, or some of the other high end british and American companies. Besides, the amps I chose came from onkyo high end product line(which would probably mean nothing to you) which had an excellent performance to value ratio. John curl stated that he would and could make these amps sound 50 times betterthan they did new. He made them 100 times better sounding.


Does John Curl have the research and development monies to compete with the major high end manufactures who build high end audio today ?

John is retired last I heard. However when he was at Parasound, he created the best sounding products that company has ever seen, and his latest amp designs were met with very high praise from the audiophile community(or what is left of them)


One of the main reason many of the older high end audio companies no longer exist is because of the lack of research and development money.

Or bad management. Engineers are not the most savvy of business people. They create components, not manage companies. You can design the best sounding speaker in the world, but if you cannot market it well, it will flop on the sales floor.


Objective are not as you see it , that is my opinion regarding the issue of comparing today's high end speakers to yesterday's high end speakers. I respect you position on the issue of audio , although I do not agree with much of it.
I will add finally there has been many improvements in electronic , not so with speakers.
Again that is my position.

Speakers are where the greatest improvement has come. From driver material to anechoic chambers to measuring devices have all made more speakers sound good today than they ever could back in the day. Back in the day there were a few VERY large speakers that sounded really good. Today, there are hundreds that sound as good if not better than the best of yesteryear. Toole has stated this many many times in his lectures.

Somewhere around when I was born you checked out of audio's advancing technological developments. This has led to a nostalgic ignorance of what is happening today. That is a shame, because so many advances have done much to turning speaker design more into a scientific thing, than the experiemental thing it was back in the day.

I like Drum and Bugle corps of the 70's. 80's, and early 90's. I do not like what it is today. That does not mean it is not good as it was back in the day, I just relate to the early period because I marched in the 80's. In every parameter under the sun(with the exception of entertainment value) Drum corps is way better today than when I marched. I acknowledge this, but it does not allow me to related to it any better. This is what has happened to you in audio. You love the equipment manufactured at a time when you were really loved audio. Then your mind just shut off when things happened to audio that you could not related to. The technology and quality marched forward, while your mind marked time.

[emaidel]

My, my, my! This thread is downright nasty!

So, naturally, I had to join in. M. Walker's credibility went out the window with me way back in one of his earlier threads when he referred to the AR-2ax and AR-3a with devout reverence. The 2ax was OK for its day (1965) and the 3a a big improvement over the 3 when it was introduced (1967), but speakers have come a long way baby since then.

[SlumpBuster]

Melvin lost all credibility when he slammed Japanese engineering and automobiles.

Melvin... you really, really, really need to get out more often. Alot has happened in the last fifty years.

BMW M3 vs. Honda Type R
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xB4z4SjygpU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xB4z4SjygpU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Honda vs Porsche vs BMW: BMW loses it in the corner.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tZ-bs0eAXrw&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tZ-bs0eAXrw&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

OH DAMN! The Honda pwnage just keeps on coming!
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sBup_xMy_Mw&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sBup_xMy_Mw&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

I can't resist just one more.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RWMM4fxDXyA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RWMM4fxDXyA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jjgnaJigSzk&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jjgnaJigSzk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Melvins a troll. Or maybe the latest incarnation of lexipanaskies.

Edit: Why come embedded video isn't working?

[melvin walker]

Not really sure this point is related to the overall discussion, but you are correct. Where do most of the audiophiles live is a big mystery since they do not all clutter together.







This explains so much. You have no knowledge of a person that has profoundly changed the way speakers are made, how they are measured, and created the criteria based on listening test of thousands of people that defines what makes speakers sound good, and what makes them sound bad. He is also one of the foremost experts on small room acoustics and speaker/room interactivity, having written so many white papers on the subject that he could open his own public library. He has designed speakers back in the 60's as well as designed speakers today. And yes, his contribution to audio are much greater than both Lansing and Fisher.



Once again, you have made my point. To somebody other than you, a Lexus is high end, and so is a corvette. Either way, how one evalutes what is high end or not does not speak to quality, it just speaks to price of which the two have no correlation whatsoever.



Audio magazines also serve as a advertising platform for manufacturers. You give a bad review to a product, and you will never see said manufacturers dollars again. This creates a profound pressure to subjectively and postively review all the products advertised in order to save your revenue stream and magazine. Ask Richard Hardesty about the relationship as it relates to Widescreen Review. His honest, straight, and objective views based on science(rather than opinion) got him fired.



The decline in audiophiles walks in line with the decline of high end in general. Too much snake oil, too many golden ears, too many statements that defy physics all refuted by science and DBT's. Does 3 meters of wire costing $10 dollars sound better than 3 meters costing $2,000? Measurements and DBT says no. Does a speaker that cost a mere $1,000 a pair sound as good as some costing $50,000? Absolutely. The value to performance of high end products is so out of skew it is almost a bad joke. The high end has become nothing more than the well heeled. No relevance to performance at all, but marketed to those who care about how much it cost rather than how good does it sound.



Rives audio is a company known world wide, not just in the bay area. Rives Audio is not even located in the Bay Area, it is located in the midwest. Isn't that where Iowa is?



Your ignorance is amusing. The Japanese have proven they can build anything they want. After all, they have created all of the audio and video formats for that last 37 years. As far as cars, I have no interest. Point a to point b is about all the interest I can muster. I have a hybrid SUV, and a two seat Hybrid Honda.

To answer your question about why buy Japanese equipment? Because when it comes to performance per dollar, they seem to do much better at equaling this out than companies like Wilson Audio, or some of the other high end british and American companies. Besides, the amps I chose came from onkyo high end product line(which would probably mean nothing to you) which had an excellent performance to value ratio. John curl stated that he would and could make these amps sound 50 times betterthan they did new. He made them 100 times better sounding.



John is retired last I heard. However when he was at Parasound, he created the best sounding products that company has ever seen, and his latest amp designs were met with very high praise from the audiophile community(or what is left of them)



Or bad management. Engineers are not the most savvy of business people. They create components, not manage companies. You can design the best sounding speaker in the world, but if you cannot market it well, it will flop on the sales floor.



Speakers are where the greatest improvement has come. From driver material to anechoic chambers to measuring devices have all made more speakers sound good today than they ever could back in the day. Back in the day there were a few VERY large speakers that sounded really good. Today, there are hundreds that sound as good if not better than the best of yesteryear. Toole has stated this many many times in his lectures.

Somewhere around when I was born you checked out of audio's advancing technological developments. This has led to a nostalgic ignorance of what is happening today. That is a shame, because so many advances have done much to turning speaker design more into a scientific thing, than the experiemental thing it was back in the day.

I like Drum and Bugle corps of the 70's. 80's, and early 90's. I do not like what it is today. That does not mean it is not good as it was back in the day, I just relate to the early period because I marched in the 80's. In every parameter under the sun(with the exception of entertainment value) Drum corps is way better today than when I marched. I acknowledge this, but it does not allow me to related to it any better. This is what has happened to you in audio. You love the equipment manufactured at a time when you were really loved audio. Then your mind just shut off when things happened to audio that you could not related to. The technology and quality marched forward, while your mind marked time.

Excellent counterpoints. We can agree to disagree. It appears that as others you fall pray to analysis. You appear to also read minds.
I will cover only a few of your objections because there are so many.

Japanese produce excellent products , but not the best. An example: Nakamichi Dragon
an outstanding cassette recorder. Today the Revox B215 and the Tandberg 3014A are more revered by audiophiles than the Dragon , which requires more maintenance and appears to not have the longevity of the European cassettes which and generally has higher resale value.

As for as cars , the Japanese produce excellent cars , but again not the best. Lexus 400 series is excellent cars. Excellent value. The big Mercedes , BMW 's etc. are better performing cars. Not necessarily better values.

Again as I have said many times today's audio is in most cases superior to that produced
years ago with some exceptions. Speakers in my opinion. are that exception. We can agree to disagree on this one point.
Name calling and personal analysis is really not necessary. I respect your opinion and
has enjoyed the give and take discussion.

[JohnMichael]

Melvin lost all credibility when he slammed Japanese engineering and automobiles.

Melvins a troll. Or maybe the latest incarnation of lexipanaskies.





Melvin had me at speakers must be 12 feet apart.

No I checked his IP address because I thought he might be a reincarnation. He is uniquely new.

[E-Stat]

He made them 100 times better sounding.
Not sure that was the best example of Japanese engineering if JC could mod them to such a profound effect. Why not just start with JC-1s instead? :)

rw

[Rich-n-Texas]

Melvin had me at speakers must be 12 feet apart.
:lol: He had me at Mr Fisher & Mr. Marantz wiped his a$$!
:yikes: DAMMIT!!! I cursed again!


No I checked his IP address because I thought he might be a reincarnation. He is uniquely new.
I thought he was Joe Bialek.

[GMichael]

What is this, the thread from hell?

[JohnMichael]

What is this, the thread from hell?




The thread from hell as it was fifty years ago. Modern fire and brimstone has not improved upon the fire and brimstone of 50 years ago.

[GMichael]

The thread from hell as it was fifty years ago. Modern fire and brimstone has not improved upon the fire and brimstone of 50 years ago.


So, you're saying that the Japanese fire & brimstone will never handle as good as the European fire & brimstone?:crazy:

[JohnMichael]

So, you're saying that the Japanese fire & brimstone will never handle as good as the European fire & brimstone?:crazy:




Please no personal analysis. I said what I said.

[Woochifer]

Geez, I guess that the ghost of Lex has reincarnated in yet another form! :lol: The appearance of this thread and Perv's suspension are once again coincidental, right?

Anyway, as others have pointed out, this topic is a recycled variation of pining for them good old days.

We've had arguments about this topic, but my response remains the same -- why the hell would anyone want to go back to the old days? The performance that you can get for the money, and the variety of audio gear available to consumers, is far greater today than 20, 30, or 40 or more years ago.

Rather than focusing on the high end to make that argument, all that anyone has to do is look at the quality of what's available in the affordable price points and compare that to what people were using before.

-A typical $200 bookshelf speaker from today will pretty much smoke the vast majority of comparably priced speakers in that price range that I listened to in the 70s and 80s. Superior frequency response, off-axis response, imaging, power handling, etc. In the 70s and 80s, you had a much bigger variation in speaker tonal characteristics than you get nowadays. But, that just simply means that you had that many more inaccurate and unlistenable speakers on the market back then than you do now.

-Consider that a mid-level receiver in the mid-70s cost around $600. Well, that same $600 is worth closer to $2,000 today. You think that a $2,000 two-channel integrated amp wouldn't significantly outperform that vintage receiver?

-For all the audiophile complaints about MP3 players, I would challenge them to live with any of the portable audio alternatives from the 70s and 80s. Ever listen to prerecorded cassettes (which BTW began outselling LPs two years before the CD was introduced)? 128k MP3 is a pristine audio oasis compared to that garbage!

-Consider that the majority of audio systems purchased in the 70s and 80s were compact all-in-one systems and record changers. Is that any different from today, where most consumers use mini systems and now iPod-connected setups? Here too, the audio performance of what's commonly available today is far superior to what the mass market was using 30 years ago.

-Back in the 70s and 80s, in order to hear discrete multichannel audio, you had to go to a movie theater and hope that they were playing a 4-track or 6-track magstriped print. Now, 5.1 audio is very easy to find. And with the new lossless audio formats and multichannel PCM, you can actually play soundtracks at the same resolution as the original masters. This is quite a leap from the old days when every home audio format entailed some signal loss or downsampling from the original master source.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Not sure that was the best example of Japanese engineering if JC could mod them to such a profound effect. Why not just start with JC-1s instead? :)

rw

Maybe JC is just plain brilliant and is able to take a very good design and make it better. He has done that with amps for too many years to remember.

I was not willing to purchase new amps when I already had very good ones. When I told him what amps I had, his response was "good design, good sound, but I can make it better". That is exactly what he did. One can only say his design philosophy is very different than the japanese.

[E-Stat]

Maybe JC is just plain brilliant and is able to take a very good design and make it better. He has done that with amps for too many years to remember.
I've admired his work for many years. I remember well the (first) JC-2 he designed for Mark Levinson back in the 70s. I've heard his statement JC-1 amps on Sound Lab speakers, While I wouldn't trade my VTLs for them, they are nevertheless very fine indeed.

Here again, that just didn't say much for Onkyo. Perhaps Accuphase would have been a better example. :)

rw

[Rich-n-Texas]

Yes you did, and I am going to worsh your mouth out for it. Red chicklet for you potty mouth!


Wellll... We're waaaaaiting... :rolleyes:

(extra text)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I've admired his work for many years. I remember well the (first) JC-2 he designed for Mark Levinson back in the 70s. I've heard his statement JC-1 amps on Sound Lab speakers, While I wouldn't trade my VTLs for them, they are nevertheless very fine indeed.

Here again, that just didn't say much for Onkyo. Perhaps Accuphase would have been a better example. :)

rw

I am not quite sure what you are alluding to concerning the Onkyos, but there was nothing WRONG with them in the first place. The amps sounded quite good, and were by Curls words well designed. All he did was take the amps apart and re-design it with his parts and to his standards. It just so happens that they sound better to me now not to mention some other performance benefits. He tooks a good amp and made it better. No bash on the orignal design or how it sounded in the first place, it just sounds better now. So no need to indirectly bash the Onkyos if that is what you are trying to do.

I do not own anything accuphase. So to use it in my example wouldn't mean much.

[Groundbeef]

Wouldn't it just be easier for Mr. Walker to hire out a Big Band to play at his leisure in his home? After all, you can't beat the sound of live music.

Plus Big Band is old, and he most likely was in his 20's when it was popular.

Then he could also hire out a tent and have a revival. Not too much swearing, but lots of fire and brimstone.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Yeah, if he can afford to own a BMW 850, surely he can hire his own band. :rolleyes:

[Luvin Da Blues]

Ya but where is he gunna find a band that still uses 1930's era equipment???

[Groundbeef]

Ya but where is he gunna find a band that still uses 1930's era equipment???

The Good Lord always provides. Thats why he has a revival first. The instruments are forged on a furnace heated with fire and brimstone.

I must admit though, it most likely will be difficult to fit the entire band in the car. Even if its a BMW, you might have to put a player or 2 in the trunk. But it would still have the best sound!

[E-Stat]

I am not quite sure what you are alluding to concerning the Onkyos...
Trying to place your comments into perspective. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall your position is that there is generally little sonic difference between most *modern* electronics and the high end offers little, if any value: "The high end has become nothing more than the well heeled. No relevance to performance at all, but marketed to those who care about how much it cost rather than how good does it sound."

So, with that perspective in mind, for YOU to say that Curl's mods made the Onks sound "100 times better", doesn't seem to speak very highly of the starting point. Indeed, everything is relative. Curl does excellent work, but then so do countless other talented designers. In that light, I think you'll find there are numerous other amplifiers that sound better than the stock Onkyos.

rw

[Luvin Da Blues]

[QUOTE=Groundbeef]I must admit though, it most likely will be difficult to fit the entire band in the car.!/QUOTE]

LOL. Why do I have visions of the "Blues Brothers" in my head?

[Groundbeef]

[QUOTE=Groundbeef]I must admit though, it most likely will be difficult to fit the entire band in the car.!/QUOTE]

LOL. Why do I have visions of the "Blues Brothers" in my head?

Clearly you cannot appreciate fine music. To equate "Blues Brothers" with Big Band is like saying a Triceratops is the same as Brontasaurus. The Blues Brothers sang "Blues" and drove to Chicago on 1/2 tank of gas and some cigarettes.

Mr. Walker is driving from 1928 to 1931 in a BMW with a full complement of Big Band Musicians blowing out the hits like Carnival in Rio.

Totally different, and yet somehow related.

Now we need to stop for a second. It seems the trombone player has fallen out of the trunk. I hope he is alright.

[GMichael]

[QUOTE=Luvin Da Blues]

Clearly you cannot appreciate fine music. To equate "Blues Brothers" with Big Band is like saying a Triceratops is the same as Brontasaurus. The Blues Brothers sang "Blues" and drove to Chicago on 1/2 tank of gas and some cigarettes.

Mr. Walker is driving from 1928 to 1931 in a BMW with a full complement of Big Band Musicians blowing out the hits like Carnival in Rio.

Totally different, and yet somehow related.

Now we need to stop for a second. It seems the trombone player has fallen out of the trunk. I hope he is alright.

He was, up until he got caught up on the rear axel.

[Rich-n-Texas]

...Even if its a BMW, you might have to put a player or 2 in the trunk. But it would still have the best sound!
Yeah but then what would you do with the BMW *tech-in-trunk*? Ask topspeed where he keeps his...

[Rich-n-Texas]

Triceratops is the same as Brontasaurus.
I'm impressed beefy. Your spelling is spot on!

Now we need to stop for a second. It seems the trombone player has fallen out of the trunk. I hope he is alright.
I think that was the tech. The music still sounds fine.

[Groundbeef]

I'm impressed beefy. Your spelling is spot on!

What can I say. I was a dino-nut as a kid. Of course, that was when music was best. Nothing sounds quite like wood on a cave wall for bass. Of course, Bose introduced 2 small coconuts that "approximated" the sound of a full cave of bass, but most cavemen were not fooled.

Except Mr. Walker. But his coconuts were of exceptional construction, made by German caveman, trained in Japanese sound caves.

[Groundbeef]

[QUOTE=Groundbeef]

He was, up until he got caught up on the rear axel.

Huh, I thought that deep Whooomp was the bass player goin' nuts. Oh well, trombone players are a dime a dozen. Unless they are German. Then they are a marc a dozen.

[JohnMichael]

I am not sure about big band but maybe barbershop quartet is the thing. Easily transportable and no instruments needed.

[Luvin Da Blues]

[QUOTE=Luvin Da Blues]

Clearly you cannot appreciate fine music. To equate "Blues Brothers" with Big Band is like saying a Triceratops is the same as Brontasaurus. The Blues Brothers sang "Blues" and drove to Chicago on 1/2 tank of gas and some cigarettes.

Mr. Walker is driving from 1928 to 1931 in a BMW with a full complement of Big Band Musicians blowing out the hits like Carnival in Rio.

Totally different, and yet somehow related.

Now we need to stop for a second. It seems the trombone player has fallen out of the trunk. I hope he is alright.

ROFLMAO...I sure have a lot to learn..Thanks GB

[Rich-n-Texas]

What can I say. I was a dino-nut as a kid. Of course, that was when music was best. Nothing sounds quite like wood on a cave wall for bass. Of course, Bose introduced 2 small coconuts that "approximated" the sound of a full cave of bass, but most cavemen were not fooled.

Except Mr. Walker. But his coconuts were of exceptional construction, made by German caveman, trained in Japanese sound caves.
Holy CRAP! You're really old.

Guy's, can we try a little harder to get our quote tags straightened out please? You're responding to your own posts and I'm getting confused. :rolleyes:

[Groundbeef]

Holy CRAP! You're really old.

Guy's, can we try a little harder to get our quote tags straightened out please? You're responding to your own posts and I'm getting confused. :rolleyes:

Whats a quote tag? Is that some 'new fangled' invention? Back in the day we used REAL quotations, not some "quote tag".

[Groundbeef]

I am not sure about big band but maybe barbershop quartet is the thing. Easily transportable and no instruments needed.

I like that. Although around the holidays, it would be nice to squeeze in a chorus line to sing showtunes. The barbershop quartet could harmonize the line, and keep them in order.

Just keep GM out of the car. He'd just do naughty things, and mess up the singing.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Guy's, can we try a little harder to get our quote tags straightened out please? You're responding to your own posts and I'm getting confused. :rolleyes:

Jeez, sorry Rich. Actually I posted that on the quick at work. The quote was from GB and I guess I must of deleted the wrong stuff.

[Rich-n-Texas]

j/k LDB.

[Luvin Da Blues]

j/k LDB.

Just goes to show how things can be misinterpreted on the web. My response was said "tongue in cheek" also. That's what we need here, a tongue in cheek smiley.

I guess I coulda used this one :prrr:

[GMichael]

Just keep GM out of the car. He'd just do naughty things, and mess up the singing.

Then how will anyone hit those high notes?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Just goes to show how things can be misinterpreted on the web. My response was said "tongue in cheek" also. That's what we need here, a tongue in cheek smiley.

I guess I coulda used this one :prrr:
:sleep:

:rolleyes:

:ciappa:

[snodog]

Another sad story of young people not understanding how good things used to be. For Christ sake everything in the world changes, not just cars and stereos. Thousands of things have improved including medicine and science to allow people like you Melvin to live longer to hate younger generations for many more years to come. It is very silly to continue to talk about how much better audio systems and musicians were much more talented then. If you have problems relating and talking to younger members then you might consider not being so critical. Nobody wants to spend $1000 on an amp and have someone like you say it is junk or not quality. Yes, time has changed and thank God for it!

[melvin walker]

Another sad story of young people not understanding how good things used to be. For Christ sake everything in the world changes, not just cars and stereos. Thousands of things have improved including medicine and science to allow people like you Melvin to live longer to hate younger generations for many more years to come. It is very silly to continue to talk about how much better audio systems and musicians were much more talented then. If you have problems relating and talking to younger members then you might consider not being so critical. Nobody wants to spend $1000 on an amp and have someone like you say it is junk or not quality. Yes, time has changed and thank God for it!

One of the problems we have today with young people is the inability to read and understand what they have read. Some blame television others the computer.
First I never said I hated young people. Second if you read my post I have said many times that the audio today was superior to audio pre 1970's with the exception of older high end speakers in my opinion.

Spending $1000 for for an amp does not guaranteed quality , I have no interest in relating to younger members , I give my position on issues involving audio and other members may counter if they wish. It is a point and counterpoint discussion.
As for as talent , I will add that the bar was much higher for singers and musicians pre 1970's. The major recording companies saw to that.

I do not support political correctness. There is a move in America where everyone is afraid to speak out because of special interest groups that howl discrimination.
If younger generations in America is so sensitive they can't handle criticism than there is little hope for the future in America.

There are those that spend $100,000 for a car , $8,000 for a suit , $15,000 for a watch etc.,
and the items are criticized and the quality questioned.
Example a $50,00 Timex keeps better time than a $7,000 Rolex. The Rolex owner does not start whining because someone said his $7,000 Rolex does not keep better time than a Timex. That's an opinion. We must learn to respect others opinions no matter how much
we disagree.

[mlsstl]

As for as talent , I will add that the bar was much higher for singers and musicians pre 1970's.
Classic mistake, Melvin. You are confusing popularity with talent. Sintatra, for example, in his early career was marketed toward teenage girls. He was promoted because he was able to sell a lot of records to teenagers in the early 1940s, not because he was considered a serious singing talent. The fact that he is now regarded as an icon of a previous era is something that only developed years later.

Actually, in the histories I've read, prior to Sinatra, records were primarily marketed to adults. He was one of the critical factors in the switch to the teenage audience. There is no shortage of irony in the fact that he is to some degree responsible for a shift in the selection of talent and marketing of music that has led to the modern state of affairs that you so dislike.

As far as modern talent you apparently just don't get out much. There are some wonderful composers, voices and musicians out there. Some do older styles that you'd be comfortable with while others are exploring new avenues. However, you are not going to find them if you don't explore anything past what is being marketed to the teenagers right now.

[melvin walker]

Classic mistake, Melvin. You are confusing popularity with talent. Sintatra, for example, in his early career was marketed toward teenage girls. He was promoted because he was able to sell a lot of records to teenagers in the early 1940s, not because he was considered a serious singing talent. The fact that he is now regarded as an icon of a previous era is something that only developed years later.

Actually, in the histories I've read, prior to Sinatra, records were primarily marketed to adults. He was one of the critical factors in the switch to the teenage audience. There is no shortage of irony in the fact that he is to some degree responsible for a shift in the selection of talent and marketing of music that has led to the modern state of affairs that you so dislike.

As far as modern talent you apparently just don't get out much. There are some wonderful composers, voices and musicians out there. Some do older styles that you'd be comfortable with while others are exploring new avenues. However, you are not going to find them if you don't explore anything past what is being marketed to the teenagers right now.

Frank Sinatra began his career in a night club , than he began singing with Harry James Band from there he moved on to the Tommy Dorsey Band. Most singers of Sinatra's era
served an apprenticeship with bands before receiving recording contracts. Crosby , Como , Day, , Haynes , Staffard , Ella , Vaughn ,, etc. Later singers such as Williams , Mathis , Jones , Wilson , etc, were performing before they received recording contracts.

Sinatra left Tommy Dorsey and went out on his own , something many male singers did not do in the 40's as a matter of fact he was the first to take that chance.
Yes he did have a following of young ladies as fans before the war. In the 50's Sinatra changed his style enabling him to appeal more to male audiences.

As for as talent Sinatra , not only was Sinatra an excellent song stylist , but an excellent actor , that won an Academy Award.
It can be argued that Frank Sinatra is one of the two most successful male singers of popular music in the 20th century alone with Bing Crosby.

[mlsstl]

Melvin, you quote various snippets from Sinatra's history in your reply but don't bother addressing the point that was raised. Starting with the Hoboken Four in 1935, he was one of a bunch of singers who were with various big-band jazz groups of that era. However, it was his appeal to teenage girls that propelled his success in the 1940s. Not too much different than the screaming hoards of girls one sees in films of the early Beatles concerts from the 60's.

Of course, you've also ignored the fact that jazz was once a rebellious music form that was looked down upon by the more cultured in musical society (just as you're looking down your nose at other genres and artists these days.) Or that many of our most famous classical musicians are famous precisely because they changed the status quo of their time, not infrequently to the displeasure of the "establishment." Look at my previous post with the JS Bach example. Those were not kudos he was receiving for his adventurous work at the church organ. And that was 300 years ago.

Don't you find it ironic at all that, in Sinatra, here we have a fellow who helped change the business model of recording industry marketing practices that has Madonna, rappers and other currently popular acts as direct descendants? I think it shows that God has a good sense of humor.

[E-Stat]

Example a $50,00 Timex keeps better time than a $7,000 Rolex. The Rolex owner does not start whining because someone said his $7,000 Rolex does not keep better time than a Timex. That's an opinion.
No, accuracy is easy to quantify and such would be understood as fact. My wife adjusts her Rolex using one of our $30 atomics. I think the reason that you have gotten so much flack here is that you have made quite a few unqualified statements that lack the usual sort of descriptors one uses when stating an opinion such as:

My experience is...
I think...
I agree with the notion that...
I believe...


We must learn to respect others opinions no matter how much we disagree.
Agreed. I might suggest, however, that you choose your words more carefully. Explain why you believe what you do. Such builds credence to support your opinion. Speaking of which, did you remember the $50,000 speaker that you believe sounds no better than an AR-3a? Or did you ever explain why you think that speakers must be 12 feet apart?

rw

[audio amateur]

dang I didn't realise you guys were going on and on about this. Ive been missing out:( or maybe not..:D

[melvin walker]

No, accuracy is easy to quantify and such would be understood as fact. My wife adjusts her Rolex using one of our $30 atomics. I think the reason that you have gotten so much flack here is that you have made quite a few unqualified statements that lack the usual sort of descriptors one uses when stating an opinion such as:

My experience is...
I think...
I agree with the notion that...
I believe...


Agreed. I might suggest, however, that you choose your words more carefully. Explain why you believe what you do. Such builds credence to support your opinion. Speaking of which, did you remember the $50,000 speaker that you believe sounds no better than an AR-3a? Or did you ever explain why you think that speakers must be 16 feet apart?



rw
To discuss an issue, it is not about the messenger but the message. My post if you read it was 12 feet apart.
If you disagree with my position on an issue than offer a counterpoint.
I am a member of several forums , I must say the language , the personal attacks , the
personal analysis is something I have never seen so much of as on this forum.
If you are in disagreement with my statement concerning an issue offer a counterpoint , not about me but the issue !

[emaidel]

I too am still waiting to hear from Mr. Walker just what $50,000 speaker compares to the AR-3a. I liked the 3a when I first heard it in 1967 (it was the first AR speaker I actually did like), but feel it's been eclipsed by countless others since. Still, this question remains unanswered...

[JohnMichael]

I too am still waiting to hear from Mr. Walker just what $50,000 speaker compares to the AR-3a. I liked the 3a when I first heard it in 1967 (it was the first AR speaker I actually did like), but feel it's been eclipsed by countless others since. Still, this question remains unanswered...



Music is learned , class plays a major role in what we listen to. The more affluent we are the more likely our parents played a role in the type of music we listen to.
Generally lower class people are exposed to music by their peers. On the other hand classical , jazz , broadway etc , parents generally play a role in exposing their children to those forms of music.

This is from another Melvin Walker thread.


Melvin has been too busy explaining how our socio-econonmic levels influence our music to answer your question. He has also been busy ending sentences in prepostitions. Something that normally does not happen in the upper levels of society.

[SlumpBuster]

[QUOTE=melvin walker]
If younger generations in America is so sensitive they can't handle criticism than there is little hope for the future in America.
[QUOTE=melvin walker]

[QUOTE=melvin walker]I am a member of several forums , I must say the language , the personal attacks , the
personal analysis is something I have never seen so much of as on this forum.[QUOTE=melvin walker]

So which is it Mel? Younger generations can't handle critisism or you, a member of the older generation, that can't handle critisism?

Oh, and we are still waiting on the answer to speakers being twelve feet apart and the $50k speaker that was no better than the AR-3. Don't think that we haven't noticed that you refuse to justify those audio knowledge turds.

[jrhymeammo]

before I digress, I gotta read this "12 feet" everyone keeps talking about...

[markw]

before I digress, I gotta read this "12 feet" everyone keeps talking about...

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=25434&highlight=12+feet

I believe this is where mel first removed his head from his rectum to utter his first words here. After which, he promptly reinserted it and will, on occasion, remove it temporarialy and grace us with more pearls of wisdom, all personal opinions, he mines from up there.

Also, please note that this is the ONLY piece of cocrete (so to speak) advice he's offered in his short but illustrious tenure here. Every other post has been his opinions bemoaning the days gone by.

The running joke here (aside from ol' mel himself) is trying to get him to tell us from where he pulls these nuggets, but I think I've stumbled on the answer. See the first sentence in this post.

[Tailwind]

Many of the recordings today are too loudly recorded leaving no room for the dynamics to increase without clipping. Im sure all have read and studied material on the loudness wars. It killed quality. But so many people complained that now and for the last few years as well there has been a slow regression to the belief that quality does have merit. And it boost sales. I personally try to find out about the recording studios Ideals and beleifs on the loudness vs. the quality issue before I even buy any of their material. Nothing is worse than clipped signals for sounding terrible and for killing your tweeters and other drivers. Why buy or build good equipment only to play source material with built in distortion? Any material produced or engineered by Allison Krauss you can bet is quality of the top nature, as well as any by Mark Knophler and there are many others but it has been an uphill battle to bring back the Purist sense of music recording. Any clip or distortion in the studio from the artist to a dat or analouge tape in the signal is a piece of the artist's material that is gone and cannot ever be recovered. Like buying the Mona Lisa and triming around the edges to make it fit a smaller frame. It just aint the whole picture anymore. What the artist wants you to see or hear has been comprimised and lost forever. Being a guitarist and somewhat of a drummer I record a lot and its really difficult to get good volume with out some clipping at times. So I understand some of the reasons for the problems. I take pleasure in the thought that its on the way back to quality instead of just volume at least for now.

[Rich-n-Texas]

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=25434&highlight=12+feet

I believe this is where mel first removed his head from his rectum to utter his first words here. After which, he promptly reinserted it and will, on occasion, remove it temporarialy and grace us with more pearls of wisdom, all personal opinions, he mines from up there.

Also, please note that this is the ONLY piece of cocrete (so to speak) advice he's offered in his short but illustrious tenure here. Every other post has been his opinions bemoaning the days gone by.

The running joke here (aside from ol' mel himself) is trying to get him to tell us from where he pulls these nuggets, but I think I've stumbled on the answer. See the first sentence in this post.
I like this one better...

Information is power ! my information has come over 50 years of listening , buying and reading about audio equipment
I have personally discussed audio with, Avery Fisher . Saul Marantz ,and Rudy Bozak .
I have traveled to audio shows in Los Angeles where I visited the JBL factory in Culver City and talked to studio engineers who set up many of the audio systems for the motion picture industry. Several of the engineers I talked with set up audio systems for MGM
musicals. Two of the engineers worked with Fred Astaire at RKO.

I bought my first audio system in 1958 , Stephens speakers , pilot pre-amp and power amp, Lesa turntable , and a autogourse cartridge.
In the St.louis area as an audiophile Spent many hours at the more than a dozen audio shops now all closed but active from 1958 thru the 1980's.Talking with other audiophiles about audio.

I have seen hundreds of audio companies go out of business. Observed the introduction of stereo , transistors , receivers , digital , CD's etc.
I have read thousands of audio magazines and audio books. Dating back to the 1950's.
I have observed live vs recorded sound in St,Louis at Powell Symphony Hall.
I have visited audio shows in Chicago , Kansas City , St.Louis , Los Angeles and London.

I have talked with men that has devoted their lives to audio. I have never heard an audio engineer or CEO's of any speaker company tell anyone that their speakers needed a break-in period. That may be true with the new speakers that are poorly designed.
This is an era of video not audio !

I would also like to know where you get your information. By the way I have keep most of my audio magazines , Audio , High Fidelity Magazine , Stereo Review , annual Stereo
reviews dating back to 1962 !
He later changed his tune to sound more like: Ummm... well... I WAS in the same room when they were talking during the show... :rolleyes:

[E-Stat]

My post if you read it was 12 feet apart.
I stand corrected. How did you arrive at that figure ?


If you are in disagreement with my statement concerning an issue offer a counterpoint , not about me but the issue !
Indeed, I agree we should focus on the issue. So what $50k speaker(s) have you heard that is/are responsible for your opinion regarding a comparison to golden oldies?

rw

[melvin walker]

Music is learned , class plays a major role in what we listen to. The more affluent we are the more likely our parents played a role in the type of music we listen to.
Generally lower class people are exposed to music by their peers. On the other hand classical , jazz , broadway etc , parents generally play a role in exposing their children to those forms of music.

This is from another Melvin Walker thread.


Melvin has been too busy explaining how our socio-econonmic levels influence our music to answer your question. He has also been busy ending sentences in prepostitions. Something that normally does not happen in the upper levels of society.

And you should learn how to use spell check ! Do you know the definition of socio-economic ? I am quite sure in reading your post you are definitely lower class.

[melvin walker]

I like this one better...

He later changed his tune to sound more like: Ummm... well... I WAS in the same room when they were talking during the show... :rolleyes:

Other forum would have censored you. It appears AudioReview's has very low standards
in regards to language being used by it's members.

[melvin walker]

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=25434&highlight=12+feet

I believe this is where mel first removed his head from his rectum to utter his first words here. After which, he promptly reinserted it and will, on occasion, remove it temporarialy and grace us with more pearls of wisdom, all personal opinions, he mines from up there.

Also, please note that this is the ONLY piece of cocrete (so to speak) advice he's offered in his short but illustrious tenure here. Every other post has been his opinions bemoaning the days gone by.

The running joke here (aside from ol' mel himself) is trying to get him to tell us from where he pulls these nuggets, but I think I've stumbled on the answer. See the first sentence in this post.

The appears that this website allows all types of language , I wonder is there anyone that monitors this site ?

[Feanor]

The appears that this website allows all types of language , I wonder is there anyone that monitors this site ?

Melvin, I can only speak for myself, but I'm sorry that some have descended to bashing you. If people don't like what you say, they should do less bashing and more ignoring.

[melvin walker]

Music is learned , class plays a major role in what we listen to. The more affluent we are the more likely our parents played a role in the type of music we listen to.
Generally lower class people are exposed to music by their peers. On the other hand classical , jazz , broadway etc , parents generally play a role in exposing their children to those forms of music.

This is from another Melvin Walker thread.


Melvin has been too busy explaining how our socio-econonmic levels influence our music to answer your question. He has also been busy ending sentences in prepostitions. Something that normally does not happen in the upper levels of society.

It appears sir you either don't read well are you have difficulty undersatnding what you read.
I wrote " I would AB any speaker system today with a pair of Concert Grands , Lansing Hartsfield's Jensen Imperials , Electro-Voice Patricians , Tannoy Churchill's even a pair of AR3a's, I believe they would hold their own with any present speaker in the $50,000
range "

It appears most of the members of this forum are poor readers. Reading is also learned.
Misspelled words "underatnding , preposititions " sir you can do better than that.
Spelling is also learned.

[noddin0ff]

And you should learn how to use spell check ! Do you know the definition of socio-economic ? I am quite sure in reading your post you are definitely lower class.

Melvin, I'm disappointed. I had hoped you were made of better stuff. You know the kind of stuff that builds good character; the kind of stuff that's not for sale. You just took a cheap shot at one of the nicest and fairest moderators I've ever had to pleasure of reading. Shame.

[GMichael]

What a spectacle this thread has become. Sure makes for some fun reading. But what a load of BS! And that coming from the BS champion himself.
:nonod: :nonod: :nonod: :nonod: :nonod:

[basite]

" I would AB any speaker system today with a pair of Concert Grands , Lansing Hartsfield's Jensen Imperials , Electro-Voice Patricians , Tannoy Churchill's even a pair of AR3a's, I believe they would hold their own with any present speaker in the $50,000
range " .


no bashing here...

but, I have compared my advents (both single and double (stacked)) against my pair of Thiel CS2.3's ($3.6k in the USA, back in 1997, around € 5K here in europe...) and the advents didn't stand a chance.

first you have to hear a 50k pair of speakers before you can even think about comparing them to anything else.

you also said that 'you were member of other forums too', I haven't seen you on www.audiokarma.org yet, they'll love you and your gear there, I'm pretty sure of that :)



Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Melvin, I can only speak for myself, but I'm sorry that some have descended to bashing you. If people don't like what you say, they should do less bashing and more ignoring.
Bill, you're on an island all by yourself.

[Bernd]

Melvin, I'm disappointed. I had hoped you were made of better stuff. You know the kind of stuff that builds good character; the kind of stuff that's not for sale. You just took a cheap shot at one of the nicest and fairest moderators I've every had to pleasure of reading. Shame.

Absolutely! Shame on you, and Melvin, you are skating on the thinest of thin ice with that attack on JM.
I have a question for you. Why do you come here? Numerous times you have said how bad and rude this forum is, how other members should be banned and how you are a member of many others fora. So why come here, if it's soooooooo beneath you?
And there I was thinking you left a while ago.

[JohnMichael]

It appears sir you either don't read well are you have difficulty undersatnding what you read.
I wrote " I would AB any speaker system today with a pair of Concert Grands , Lansing Hartsfield's Jensen Imperials , Electro-Voice Patricians , Tannoy Churchill's even a pair of AR3a's, I believe they would hold their own with any present speaker in the $50,000
range "

It appears most of the members of this forum are poor readers. Reading is also learned.
Misspelled words "underatnding , preposititions " sir you can do better than that.
Spelling is also learned.



I should not type while angry. I should not let someone such as you make me angry because you are certainly not worth it. Your contributions to this site have been minimal. Your knowledge of current equipment seems non existent. You ignore members request that you clarify a statement. Are you here just to agitate?

[Rich-n-Texas]

And you should learn how to use spell check !
No space between "check" and "!"

That has nothing to do with the history of high fidelity. It is ironic that we as Americans no so little of our history , as in this case the history of high fidelity.
Saul Marantz and James Lansing is as important to audio as Enzo Farrari and Ferry Porsche is to high performance cars.
That's... know and are.

Has the changes in popular music has an effect in how we buy audio equipment today?
Way off on this one. Have the changes... and had an effect...

You contradict youself at every turn old man.

I like this one better...

He later changed his tune to sound more like: Ummm... well... I WAS in the same room when they were talking during the show... :rolleyes:

Other forum would have censored you. It appears AudioReview's has very low standards in regards to language being used by it's members.
Not seeing any low standard language in that post. That's forums, and, didn't we already cover the colorfulness of the language used here? Didn't you already leave once?

As one ages it is natural for them to not hear as well. Women can hear better than men , especially at higher frequencies.
You're what, 60 something? Your own words speak volumes about you old man.

BTW (By The Way), does Nurse Ratchet know you've escaped from the psych ward?

[melvin walker]

I should not type while angry. I should not let someone such as you make me angry because you are certainly not worth it. Your contributions to this site have been minimal. Your knowledge of current equipment seems non existent. You ignore members request that you clarify a statement. Are you here just to agitate?

Does your computer have "spell check " if so why not use it.
It appears your knowlege of spell check matches your knowledge of audio.

[melvin walker]

Absolutely! Shame on you, and Melvin, you are skating on the thinest of thin ice with that attack on JM.
I have a question for you. Why do you come here? Numerous times you have said how bad and rude this forum is, how other members should be banned and how you are a member of many others fora. So why come here, if it's soooooooo beneath you?
And there I was thinking you left a while ago.

It's called slumming ! You to should try using spell check.

[Rich-n-Texas]

NO Space Between "slumming" And "!"

[basite]

and 'to', at least in his sentence should have been 'too'...

we make mistakes too melvin, everybody does, that includes you too.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[Bernd]

It's called slumming ! You to should try using spell check.

Ahh, you're back. And I thought you left for good!

Ahh, da bist Du ja wieder. Und ich dachte Du hatest uns fuer immer verlassen.

Peace

Frieden

:16:

[melvin walker]

no bashing here...

but, I have compared my advents (both single and double (stacked)) against my pair of Thiel CS2.3's ($3.6k in the USA, back in 1997, around € 5K here in europe...) and the advents didn't stand a chance.

first you have to hear a 50k pair of speakers before you can even think about comparing them to anything else.

you also said that 'you were member of other forums too', I haven't seen you on www.audiokarma.org yet, they'll love you and your gear there, I'm pretty sure of that :)



Keep them spinning,
Bert.

The key issue here is an A/B comparison, I have heard speakers that cost more than $50,000. price does not alone in my opinion determine how a speaker may sound to you.
I have friends with $200,000 cars that are very unhappy with their cars reliability.

If I had any idea that the response here was so immature I would not have gotten involved.
I hope the other site has members that are more mature. There are several members that can discuss audio, and I think they are in the majority . unfortunately they are overshadowed by a minority that read little and know less.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I hope the other site has members that are more mature. There are several members that can discuss audio, and I think they are in the majority . unfortunately they are overshadowed by a minority that read little and know less.
Yeah, I think agitate is the right word here...

Melvin, you didn't capitalize Unfortunately.

[melvin walker]

Absolutely! Shame on you, and Melvin, you are skating on the thinest of thin ice with that attack on JM.
I have a question for you. Why do you come here? Numerous times you have said how bad and rude this forum is, how other members should be banned and how you are a member of many others fora. So why come here, if it's soooooooo beneath you?
And there I was thinking you left a while ago.

I tried to take the high road , I gave my opinions on speakers , amps etc. I have no problems with those that disagree with my positions on audio. What I disagree with was the language and personal attacks.
I said in most of my post , we can agree to disagree , lets discuss the issues , audio. Instead more attacks .

Well when you lay with dogs you get fleas. To allow a few immature members to control access to this forum is inappropriate. I will repeat again there are members on this forum that can have a friendly debate , and there are others.
The issue was not me but my position. I don't know who JM is I was responding to his post. As I am responding to yours.

[mlsstl]

Misspelled words "underatnding , preposititions " sir you can do better than that.
Spelling is also learned.

Melvin, given the rather imaginative linguistic aspects of some of your own posts, I'm surprised you've now chosen spelling and grammar as the basis on which to lecture others. Shakespeare once wrote something (in Hamlet, I believe) about being hoist on one's own petard. Thank you for illustrating the concept.

You've also complained about others failing to properly engage in the discussion on audio, but I've noticed that you've repeatedly failed to address the majority of audio and music related responses I and others have posted in specific response to your missives.

As such, you'll forgive me for being somewhat confused as to what you're trying to accomplish. It is obvious that you are fond of many pieces of classic audio equipment, but it would be more informative if you could get a bit more specific about the expensive modern models you feel they best, and in what way.

If you want an audio or music oriented discussion, it is time to move past the generic platitudes you've posted to date and get into specifics.

[Rich-n-Texas]

VERY well said mlsstl.

[noddin0ff]

Melvin, we don't know who you are either. If you're going to bemoan personal attacks then don't make them. If you intend to claim the high road, you should do yourself a favor and stay in the no passing lane (and note that your seatbelt is hangin' out the door). I suggest you take the exit ramp and find another small minded, provincial town down the road aways and encamp there


Can we just ban the guy and give SVI a guest column? That would be a lot more rewarding for us all.

[markw]

If I had any idea that the response here was so immature I would not have gotten involved.Don't let the door hit you on the way out. It's not like you contribute anything here except snob appeal and a great target for our sarcasm. We're still rolling about your 12 foot rule and waiting for some verication of your sources.


Well when you lay with dogs you get fleas.Your sex life does not interest us but thanks for sharing your experiences with us.

Didn't you say you were through with this forum a few weeks ago? Remember, a man is only as good as his word. I guess it's true.

[emaidel]

I raelly thnik taht you gyus shluod lavee poor Mleivn aolne.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I raelly thnik taht you gyus shluod lavee poor Mleivn aolne.
I'm confused again. But then again I'm old too. :(

[Ajani]

This thread is hilarious (I hope I spelled that correctly... lol)....

The only problem I'm having is that I'm not sure whether I really should be laughing... I find Melvin to be much like SpankingVanillaIce.... so I'm not sure whether he's -

A) Just another troll (Every time I return to this forum after a few years absence, we seem to have a new resident troll)

OR

B) Someone who really is just totally out of touch with reality, whether because of old age (Melvin) or some kind of mental disability (SVI)...

In case A) these threads are hilarious, but in case B) I kind of feel bad for laughing at these guys....

[emaidel]

I'm confused again. But then again I'm old too. :(


Our "friend" Melvin, once firmly planted on his altar, still continues to make grammatical and spelling errors, and seems to refuse to acknowledge doing so. My post was a (perhaps poor) attempt at poking fun at that.

At least no one has yet used the non-word, "irregardless."

[Rich-n-Texas]

My post was a (perhaps poor) attempt at poking fun at that.
No no, your post worked well. :thumbsup:


At least no one has yet used the non-word, "irregardless."
What do you mean it's a non-word??? I use it all the time!:idea:

[johnny p]

My post was a (perhaps poor) attempt at poking fun at that

"an" attempt, parenthetical content doesn't trump the a/an rule. But I find this thread wonderful fun IRREGARDLESS.

(you may carry on with the stupid scrutinizing of spelling and grammar now, oh god... did I spell "scrutinizing" correctly? oh Melvin please help me!!!!)


Seriously though people...... without looking (I'll know if you cheat) do you guys know the intended topic of this thread at the time of its creation? I certainly don't!

[Les Adams]

""


I don't know Les,

you should be darn proud to have owned the 1600E.

The Z4M is a wonderful car. I test drove one a few weeks ago at a showroom and almost bought it, I was that impressed. It was in a beautiful metallic taupe colour with red leather interior. I also looked at a Porche Boxter special edition in that peculiar shade of yellow a la GT3 and black painted alloys and trim. I ended up choosing the Mercedes SLK 350 convertible Special Edition (only 200 made) in black on black. I just couldn't get over the crazy cool way the hard-top hood folds into the trunk, or how warm the car keeps you even when its cold and the top is down.

And yet, one of the cars my Dad owned when I was a whippersnapper was The Ford Cortina 1600E in gold and black. What a car. I think I would get just as much of a kick out of driving around in that as in the Merc, despite a huge performance and technology difference. I've heard the Garrard 401 in a friends system by the way, and I;ve got to say it sounds pretty darn good even though its yonks and yonks old. It is however, heavily modified.


Sorry for the delay in reply but I have been away for a while.

Yes the 1600E was a great car untill, like most Fords of that era, the rust sets in! At the time it seemed very fast and agile but I wonder how it would feel now after driving modern cars? I love my BMW Z4M but to be honest it is over-powered for UK roads and I find the ride rather hard. Once the "thrill factor" of all that torque and horses wears of I will sell it on I am sure. I also have a BMW 2.8 Z3 Roadster. The Z3 is not as quick (0-60 in 7.1 secs) but it is a much smoother ride and I also think is is a more traditional style of sports car than the Z4. Your Merc is a fantastic car also. I have never owned a Mercedes.. maybe next time.

To make a comparison with cars and audio is valid I believe. It all boils down to taste, requirements and the perception of the individual. Sure the specifications can look more impressive and even my partner who is happy to listen to music on a ghetto blaster can hear the difference when I play my hi-fi, but she can't hear and / or doesn't really care about hearing those little sounds down in the mix as long as she can hear the tune! But then she hates the Z4 as it is too bumpy and too fast! Horses for courses as they say!

[topspeed]

This is one of the more inane threads I've seen here. My suspicion is that Mel is a troll, albeit not a very good one. His decision to never respond to simple requests destroys any validity he may have. The worst part is he's not even that entertaining! Shoot, he couldn't hold SVI or Lexi's colostomy bags.



Yes the 1600E was a great car untill, like most Fords of that era, the rust sets in! At the time it seemed very fast and agile but I wonder how it would feel now after driving modern cars? I love my BMW Z4M but to be honest it is over-powered for UK roads and I find the ride rather hard. Once the "thrill factor" of all that torque and horses wears of I will sell it on I am sure. I also have a BMW 2.8 Z3 Roadster and a BMW 320ise. The Z3 is not as quick (0-60 in 7.1 secs) but it is a much smoother ride and I also think is is a more traditional style of sports car than the Z4. Your Merc is a fantastic car also. I have never owned a Mercedes.. maybe next time.Nice ride, Les. Long live the S54! (although like you, I prefer the traditional styling of the Z3 to the "flame surfacing" of the Z4)

IIRC, the Cortina is famous for being the car one of racing's all time greats cut his teeth in. You may know him by his nickname: "Wee Scot."

[Rich-n-Texas]

Shoot, he couldn't hold SVI or Lexi's colostomy bags.
Oh JEEEEZ!!! That's just NASTY! :eek:

[topspeed]

Oh JEEEEZ!!! That's just NASTY! :eek:
Aww c'mon Rich...that's nuthin'!

My vote is to move Mel's threads to the Cage. Then y'all can stop dancing around the issue and get right to it! :devil:

[JohnMichael]

We have a winner. Colostomy bag trumps douche bag.

[Groundbeef]

Oh JEEEEZ!!! That's just NASTY! :eek:

Not really. Considering 'back in the day' when Melvin was a wee chap they didn't even have colostomy bags, it would be a step up.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Were zip-lock storage bags invented yet?

[GMichael]

How about soggy socks?

[Rich-n-Texas]

THE AR FORUMS IS COOKIN' TODAY!!! :thumbsup:

[Groundbeef]

Were zip-lock storage bags invented yet?

No, they just used butcher paper.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Wait a minute. If they hadn't invented colostomy bags yet then how could there have been colostomy's. That doesn't make sense!

[Groundbeef]

Wait a minute. If they hadn't invented colostomy bags yet then how could there have been colostomy's. That doesn't make sense!

Who the hell are you? Columbo? They hadn't invented colsotomy bags because 'back in the day' people didn't need them. Colostomys' are a direct result of todays music, and loose morals. (or other loose substances)

Shouldn't you be adjusting your speaker width?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Shouldn't you be adjusting your speaker width?
Well, I put the left speaker outside on the porch like I was told, but now it's gone. :cryin:

[GMichael]

Well, I put the left speaker outside on the porch like I was told, but now it's gone. :cryin:

I don't see it here. But I did pick up this one B&W on Ebay. Would you like to buy it cheap?

[Groundbeef]

Well, I put the left speaker outside on the porch like I was told, but now it's gone. :cryin:

Well, hows that saying go? "If you love something let it go...if it returns, it loves you too"

BTW if you had speakers like Melvin, you wouldn't have this problem. Even if you left it on the porch it would still be there. Its harder to "borrow" a 300lb speaker.

Don't forget to return your feet.

[markw]

Well, I put the left speaker outside on the porch like I was told, but now it's gone. :cryin:They did that to make you feel like you were back in good ol' Joisey.

One of the fun games the kids play in Nork is to get a red jackets and a sign that says "Valet Parking" and stand outside restaurants that don't have parking lots.