-
Mac was owned by Clarion before going to D&M, it could be possible they've maintained quality of the original gear but I have my doubts. Especially if you've ever heard their preamp processors, there are much better for much less. With this being said I agree Mac is still a good product, just some more than others. Pix Mac is definitely not the last word in audio gear. There are many who surpass them in quality and sound.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
Pix Mac is definitely not the last word in audio gear. There are many who surpass them in quality and sound.
during their Clarion period, they came up with surround sound (for HT uses), and car audio. Stereo product's quality remained fantastic however, I do feel they're better off at D&M though, they have more freedom now, which results in way better products...
and I agree that there are better products as a Mcintosh (well, sound wise), but Mcintosh is a company with a really special house sound, and if you like that particular house sound, nothing else will do.
they are still quite exclusive and still very high end though. And their sound quality is ever improving, their new MC1.2kw amps are a huge difference over the previous MC1201's, even though spec wise, it's almost the same amp...
Keep them spinning,
Bert.
-
As there are several other threads where Melvin Walker posts half-truths about audio, and can't seem to move beyond 1958, let me try to bring my own thread back on topic, which is/was, "Dirty Little Secrets."
Retailers in the heyday of the business (late 70's) carried the lines of electronics they did mostly for the sake of profit margins, and not because they believed that Kenwood (just as an example) was indeed "better" than Pioneer, or that Marantz was better than JVC, and so on. Most dealers couldn't be faulted for choosing "push" lines of electronics, since having a brand other dealers didn't gave them an exclusive, and a chance to make a decent profit, especially when a brand such as Pioneer was so overly distributed and heavily discounted that making money on it was all but impossible.
That was very true about Pioneer, but there was never anything wrong the the product itself. One dealer, Audio Warehouse, based in Ohio, took a very aggressive and highly unethical approach. Audio Warhouse's key electronics line was Kenwood, not necessarily because it was "better" than others, but likely because the owner of Audio Warehouse and the local Kenwood rep were drug-using buddies who likely used their enormous wealth to supply one another with a continuous amount of cocaine.
Apparently, the cocaine use really screwed up the owner of the chain, as he embarked on an anti-Pioneer campaign in which he'd flagrantly advertise a Kenwood unit and make comparisons to a "lesser," and "inferior" Pioneer in his newspaper ads. He'd often advertise a Pioneer piece for a lowball price (he wasn't a Pioneer dealer) and then when someone arrived in one of his stores to buy it, that person received a high pressure effort from the salespeople to push a Kenwood unit instead due to how "lousy," "cheap," and "crummy" the Pioneer unit supposedly was.
The VP of Pioneer, Bernie Halpurn, was one of the most respected people in the industry, who systematically went about collecting evidence against Audio Warehouse to sue them for fraud. Bernie.hired a large amount of individuals to shop Audio Warehouse stores and recorded the lies and distortions the salespeople fed them about Pioneer equipment. Bernie also had a ton of ads to support his cause as well. This went on for a year or so, and then the lawsuit was launched, and it did just as Bernie intended it to: it put Audio Warehouse out of business.
In the end, Pioneer was the winner. Still, throughout this debacle, both the owner of Audio Warehouse and the Kenwood rep made a small fortune, and did so with a total lack of honesty, ethics or even decency. Kenwood made a fine product, and some Kenwood products were indeed better than competing Pioneer units, but the approach Audio Warehouse used was disgraceful.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by emaidel
As there are several other threads where Melvin Walker posts half-truths about audio, and can't seem to move beyond 1958, let me try to bring my own thread back on topic, which is/was, "Dirty Little Secrets."
...........
LOL
Excellent thread by the way...
Keep it coming....
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by emaidel
As there are several other threads where Melvin Walker posts half-truths about audio, and can't seem to move beyond 1958, let me try to bring my own thread back on topic, which is/was, "Dirty Little Secrets."
Retailers in the heyday of the business (late 70's) carried the lines of electronics they did mostly for the sake of profit margins, and not because they believed that Kenwood (just as an example) was indeed "better" than Pioneer, or that Marantz was better than JVC, and so on. Most dealers couldn't be faulted for choosing "push" lines of electronics, since having a brand other dealers didn't gave them an exclusive, and a chance to make a decent profit, especially when a brand such as Pioneer was so overly distributed and heavily discounted that making money on it was all but impossible.
That was very true about Pioneer, but there was never anything wrong the the product itself. One dealer, Audio Warehouse, based in Ohio, took a very aggressive and highly unethical approach. Audio Warhouse's key electronics line was Kenwood, not necessarily because it was "better" than others, but likely because the owner of Audio Warehouse and the local Kenwood rep were drug-using buddies who likely used their enormous wealth to supply one another with a continuous amount of cocaine.
Apparently, the cocaine use really screwed up the owner of the chain, as he embarked on an anti-Pioneer campaign in which he'd flagrantly advertise a Kenwood unit and make comparisons to a "lesser," and "inferior" Pioneer in his newspaper ads. He'd often advertise a Pioneer piece for a lowball price (he wasn't a Pioneer dealer) and then when someone arrived in one of his stores to buy it, that person received a high pressure effort from the salespeople to push a Kenwood unit instead due to how "lousy," "cheap," and "crummy" the Pioneer unit supposedly was.
The VP of Pioneer, Bernie Halpurn, was one of the most respected people in the industry, who systematically went about collecting evidence against Audio Warehouse to sue them for fraud. Bernie.hired a large amount of individuals to shop Audio Warehouse stores and recorded the lies and distortions the salespeople fed them about Pioneer equipment. Bernie also had a ton of ads to support his cause as well. This went on for a year or so, and then the lawsuit was launched, and it did just as Bernie intended it to: it put Audio Warehouse out of business.
In the end, Pioneer was the winner. Still, throughout this debacle, both the owner of Audio Warehouse and the Kenwood rep made a small fortune, and did so with a total lack of honesty, ethics or even decency. Kenwood made a fine product, and some Kenwood products were indeed better than competing Pioneer units, but the approach Audio Warehouse used was disgraceful.
You are I guess referring to mid range audio gear. Pioneer was a late player on the audio scene. Their audio equipment was fair to middling. You also referred to Marantz , which Marantz before are after it was made in the United States ? If before one would never compare Marantz with JVC ! , JVC and Pioneer was no different from the flood of indifferent middling Japanese audio being sold to an indifferent audio public.
Kenwood did build some decent audio gear , not high end but decent. What is a piece of Kenwood audio gear selling for today ? Pioneer , JVC , and most used mid range Japanese audio equipment can be had for a song.
1958 , a good year ,Gigi won the Academy Award , the most popular book wa Dr. Zhivago , My Fair Lady began it's run on Broadway , The Baltimore Colts defeated the New
York Giants in the first overtime championship game , transistor radios made their first appearance and many Americans moved from the big cities to the suburbs.
I bought my first stereo equipment . A pair of Stephens low boy speakers , Lesa changer ,General Electric cartridge , Pilot preamp, power amp and FM tuner.
Price , on sale for $450.00 !
1958 a good year. Oh yes I was driving a 1957 Studebaker Golden Hawk.
All this and attending College as a full time student.
No Japanese junk for me , In 1958 there was none !
A counterpoint.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
Pioneer was no different from the flood of indifferent middling Japanese audio being sold to an indifferent audio public.
perhaps you have never heard of the Pioneer Spec line, or from the Pioneer Exclusive line, which are both highly sought after, and often go for the same and more than the marantzes that were built in america. Especially the Exclusive line.
http://www.thevintageknob.org/PIONEER/PIONEER-main.html
perhaps you've also never heard of Kenwood's Supreme line, also definately high end.
http://www.thevintageknob.org/KENWOO...PREME700.html#
Keep them spinning,
Bert.
-
I had some Kenwood upper end gear called the "D" series. This was very good but still mid-fi, not on the same level as Mac or other brands unanimously considered high end. I seriously doubt Pioneer ever did either. Sometimes people seek the vintage gear for all the wrong reasons I try to keep an open mind but Pioneer has always been disappointing to me. Except their TV's, how they do that, who knows, probably buy from some one else.
Melvin you give the Japanese mass market too much credit, it was entry at best. Some of the gear was pretty good though. Luxman held it's own for awhile. I have a Sansui AU9500 that I have been extremely impressed with, it could probably hold it's own with entry high end gear like Arcam and the like. Too bad Pilot and other American companies couldn't stay in business to offer future generations something besides Japanese gear. It was pretty good to the average Joe who couldn't afford the American stuff still around like Mac, ARC or Conrad Johnson. There are always exceptions but for the most part the Japanese gear built in Japan was reliable. Harmon Kardon's in the 80's never came back after the sale.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by basite
I want to ge this in writing , question , the Pioneer Exclusive line and the Kenwood Supreme 700 is selling used for the same price as the Marantz Model 9A's power amps ?
The Marantz 10B tuner , the Marantz 8B power amp , the Marantz 7C pre amp and the Marantz Model One pre amps ? used ?
Would you want to use Ebay as a source ? Are what source would you suggest ?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
I want to ge this in writing , question , the Pioneer Exclusive line and the Kenwood Supreme 700 is selling used for the same price as the Marantz Model 9A's power amps ?
The Marantz 10B tuner , the Marantz 8B power amp , the Marantz 7C pre amp and the Marantz Model One pre amps ? used ?
Would you want to use Ebay as a source ? Are what source would you suggest ?
currently, all the models you said are on Audiogon, the spec line sells for less as the marantzes, so does the Kenwood, but they're still worth alot.
Good luck even finding a second hand Pioneer Exclusive amp or preamp. If those things ever come up for sale, it's probably in Japan only, that's how rare they are.
here's another one for ya, they're from 1987, so not really vintage vintage, but not new neither.
Centennial Series, from that other Japanese brand, Yamaha. Saw their cd player, preamp and poweramp on Ebay germany a while back. Each item ended well over $10k, way above their original retail price.
Keep them spinning,
Bert.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
I had some Kenwood upper end gear called the "D" series. This was very good but still mid-fi, not on the same level as Mac or other brands unanimously considered high end. I seriously doubt Pioneer ever did either. Sometimes people seek the vintage gear for all the wrong reasons I try to keep an open mind but Pioneer has always been disappointing to me. Except their TV's, how they do that, who knows, probably buy from some one else.
Melvin you give the Japanese mass market too much credit, it was entry at best. Some of the gear was pretty good though. Luxman held it's own for awhile. I have a Sansui AU9500 that I have been extremely impressed with, it could probably hold it's own with entry high end gear like Arcam and the like. Too bad Pilot and other American companies couldn't stay in business to offer future generations something besides Japanese gear. It was pretty good to the average Joe who couldn't afford the American stuff still around like Mac, ARC or Conrad Johnson. There are always exceptions but for the most part the Japanese gear built in Japan was reliable. Harmon Kardon's in the 80's never came back after the sale.
I agree , What Gucci said makes sense ." Quality remains after the price is forgotten "
Marantz was slightly better than McIntosh and slightly higher in cost.
Some people do buy used items for the wrong reasons. That does not mean the item is not well made and built to last for years. The Ranger Paragon is a good example.
James B. Lansing built it's speakers to last and last. That was of course prior to 1970 !
There was other American audio companies that did the same. Conrad Johnson and Audio Research tried carrying on that American tradition of high quality audio equipment.
The cost of research and development , labor , and parts drove most American audio companies out of business. Sound familiar ? Enter cheap labor and effective promotion
and we have what is popular today , "if it's new it must be better."
Again you are correct Harmon Kardon , Fisher , Marantz , McIntosh , JBL , etc, were never the same after being sold. The list is endless. Most young people today has no idea
what real quality is because of the cost today of real quality.
Finally I will as usual use cars as an example. Mercedes vs Lexus, Mercedes will travel at over a hundred mph all day , a Lexus has all the new bells and whistles. Some would say they are equal I hope you get my point.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
I
And mac is and always will be the GOLD standard for high end audio gear.
There never has or ever will be ANYTHING even close.
:
That is so assinine that it barely deserves comment.
Yes, McIntosh makes some excellent products, but listen to products from Accuphase, some Krell, PS Audio, VAC, some Classe...the list goes on and on. There's never been a better time to be a lover of music. There's a sizeable group of manufacturers building top notch equipment and one must only find the system that meets one criteria and preferences.
I swear, some of y'all argue 'bout this shiite like it's a teddy bear named Mohammed.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
That is so assinine that it barely deserves comment.
Yes, McIntosh makes some excellent products, but listen to products from Accuphase, some Krell, PS Audio, VAC, some Classe...the list goes on and on. There's never been a better time to be a lover of music. There's a sizeable group of manufacturers building top notch equipment and one must only find the system that meets one criteria and preferences.
I swear, some of y'all argue 'bout this shiite like it's a teddy bear named Mohammed.
I just had to giggle with the thought of Pixel in the 80's rockin' at the beach with an Apple II hoisted over his shoulder ala' BoomBox style!
-
Just to add to Stick's admonition, I'd like to point out that arguing about cassette decks and who made the best one kinda definately probably stoopid too. It like arguing over whose hot dog is more gourmet... regardless, they just hot dogs. Just like to point out that the cassette was/is/will be a lo-fi medium shoe-horned and crammed kicking and screaming into a hi-fi product.
Cassettes are to Hi-Fi as Posh Spice is to beautiful women, niether are either, but lots o' people claim they are.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlumpBuster
Just to add to Stick's admonition, I'd like to point out that arguing about cassette decks and who made the best one kinda definately probably stoopid too. It like arguing over whose hot dog is more gourmet... regardless, they just hot dogs. Just like to point out that the cassette was/is/will be a lo-fi medium shoe-horned and crammed kicking and screaming into a hi-fi product.
Cassettes are to Hi-Fi as Posh Spice is to beautiful women, niether are either, but lots o' people claim they are.
yeah, I get your point. cassettes aren't really high end, so what we're actually talking about :cornut:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by basite
yeah, I get your point. cassettes aren't really high end, so what we're actually talking about :cornut:
Yeah, keep in mind though, I still listen to cassettes all the time. Some of my favorite albums I only have on cassette and cannot find them on LP or CD. Also, I have lots of mixtapes, college radio shows, and live club broadcasts from the 90s, all on cassette. My Pioneer keeps going, but I've been browsing Nads, Akai, Denon, and Yammie on Ebay. But, getting cassette decks off Ebay is such a crap shoot.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
That is so assinine that it barely deserves comment.
Yes, McIntosh makes some excellent products, but listen to products from Accuphase, some Krell, PS Audio, VAC, some Classe...the list goes on and on. There's never been a better time to be a lover of music. There's a sizeable group of manufacturers building top notch equipment and one must only find the system that meets one criteria and preferences.
I swear, some of y'all argue 'bout this shiite like it's a teddy bear named Mohammed.
Do a little research , review some of the past issues of Audio , High Fidelity , High Fidelity Stereo Review and Stereohile.magazines And you will find that Marantz generally recieved higher
test reviews than Mc.Intosh. Marantz generally was more expensive. Mack never made an amp equal to the Model 9's nor a tuner equal to the 10B Mack MC240 was rated lower than Marantz's 8B.
The Mack 60's was excellent power amps and so was the Mack MC75's. The MC275
while an excellent amp generally received average reviews.
The Marantz Model 8B also was highly regarded by audiophiles who had efficient speakers, such as horns are bass reflex enclosures.
As for as argue audiophiles as hobbyist , much as car hobbyist did have friendly debates as which
was which was the best , Mack or Marantz , Lansing or Bozak , Thorens or Fairchild.
Same as chevvy vs Ford , , Benz vs BMW , Corvette vs Cobra and Cadillac vs Lincoln.
I might add they did not use loose language !
Times have changed.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
I might add they did not use loose language !
Times have changed.
Yes they have. Back in your time, loose language could invite a duel. No one likes to die over a "loose" word. At least today we can engage in civil debate, and not have to pace off 20 steps.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by basite
yeah, I get your point. cassettes aren't really high end, so what we're actually talking about :cornut:
I would assume you never heard of Revox , Tandberg and Nakamichi cassette recorders. . They were and still is the state of the art. All three cassette recorders were high end ! CD players later replaced them as DVD players. is replacing CD players.
I guess there is no high end CD players ? It appears DVD players is being replaced with iPOD's.
There are those that would argue that iPOD's are low fi.
What do you think a Revox cassette recorder cost ? On Ebay a used Revox B215 is going for over $500.00 if you can find one. They listed when new for over $2000 !
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlumpBuster
Yeah, keep in mind though, I still listen to cassettes all the time. Some of my favorite albums I only have on cassette and cannot find them on LP or CD. Also, I have lots of mixtapes, college radio shows, and live club broadcasts from the 90s, all on cassette. My Pioneer keeps going, but I've been browsing Nads, Akai, Denon, and Yammie on Ebay. But, getting cassette decks off Ebay is such a crap shoot.
Slumpy, RU lookin for a tape deck??? I have a close to TOL HarmonKardon I could part with. It has very few hours on it and has been well taken care of with TLC.
-
I think when some one said cassette wasn't high end they were referring to sound reproduction. I haven't heard a Revox nor a Dragon but did their sound rival a good reel to reel or even a hi fi VHS?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbeef
Yes they have. Back in your time, loose language could invite a duel. No one likes to die over a "loose" word. At least today we can engage in civil debate, and not have to pace off 20 steps.
Duels ended in the 19th century in America. Civil debate does not include loose language. This website is not the gutter. It appears that respect in some quarters is considered old fashion , judging by the loose language I have read exhibited here.
No one would die from a loose word , but a loose word would mean a warning and than a removable from participation on the forum.
This website is very liberal !
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
I would assume you never heard of Revox , Tandberg and Nakamichi cassette recorders. . They were and still is the state of the art. All three cassette recorders were high end ! CD players later replaced them as DVD players. is replacing CD players.
I guess there is no high end CD players ? It appears DVD players is being replaced with iPOD's.There are those that would argue that iPOD's are low fi.
What do you think a Revox cassette recorder cost ? On Ebay a used Revox B215 is going for over $500.00 if you can find one. They listed when new for over $2000 !
There is no doubt that tape is very good, or studios wouldn't have used it for so long.
However, I must take issue with another point. I've bolded it, and am requesting clarification from you, Melvin.
What are you basing your suggestion on? I can't think of any instance where a consumer thinks to themselves, "Boy, I sure do need a DVD player. Oh wait, I have an IPOD. Never mind, I guess I really didn't need that DVD player after all!".
Perhaps CD players are being supplanted by both computers, and Ipods, but not DVD players.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
As for as argue audiophiles as hobbyist , much as car hobbyist did have friendly debates as which
was which was the best , Mack or Marantz , Lansing or Bozak , Thorens or Fairchild.
Same as chevvy vs Ford , , Benz vs BMW , Corvette vs Cobra and Cadillac vs Lincoln.
I might add they did not use loose language !
Times have changed.
To what loose language are you referring Mel? Or, are you utilizing the inference and assumption that you ask us not to use when reviewing your posts...
By the bye, my diplomacy and etiquette skills are quite refined, at least to the point that they've helped me land a professional position affording me the opportunity to enjoy some of the very equipment about which you opine. Kinda scary isn't it, you and I could show up at the same social gathering...you with your rudy-poo auto luminaries and me with your grand-daughter...I'll try and mind my tongue in your august presence.
-
Once again Melvin, you are showing your lack of knowledge. Sure there were high end cassette decks that cost alot of money. But, they were playing back a lo-fi medium. The cassette tape was initially developed as a dictation medium with sound quality similar to AM radio. The record industry saw a potential market for it and technology improved, but modern cassettes cannot by definition rivel CD or LP. Could they pass an A/B blind test? Sure, but not on a regular basis. Whether your Campbell's soup is the condensed version for 90cents or the Chunky version for $2.99, its still soup in a can. Thats they way it is with cassettes.
Your reference to the Ipod demonstrates a gross missunderstanding about digital playback. An Ipod is niether hi-fi or lo-fi, but is neutral. It is merely a flash drive with a DAC. The data and the compression method, if any, as well as the DAC used will determine whether the sound produced is hi or lo fi. An Ipod running lossless into an Audio Note DAC into Arcam amplification out of a pair of Theils will never, by anyone be considered lofi.
-
Oh and not all tape is equal. Reel to reel, vhs, half inch, ect, are all clearly hi-fi medium.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
I think when some one said cassette wasn't high end they were referring to sound reproduction. I haven't heard a Revox nor a Dragon but did their sound rival a good reel to reel or even a hi fi VHS?
Audio cassettes did match many of the open reel recorders in the final years of production.
The C type which was used on high end recorders such as Revox and Dragon enable the cassette to produce identical recordings later there was further improvement .the S type.
Digital Audio Tape ( DAT) was the next step in cassette improvement. DAT was killed off by the fight between the federal government and the performers over rights. By the time that was settled CD's was on the market. As you know when you buy a blank DVD there is royalty charge attached to the DVD.
The cassette recorders listed above was better quality than VHS , mainly because non of the high end manufactures was involved. VHS was mass marketed to by now an indifferent public , Beta was better , but that's another story.
Most of the cassettes for auto and home used type B for listening and recording. Inferior to type C. The high end Revox's ,Tandberg's and Dragons were outstanding cassette recorders , but they were pricy, even today they bring high prices used.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlumpBuster
Once again Melvin, you are showing your lack of knowledge. Sure there were high end cassette decks that cost alot of money. But, they were playing back a lo-fi medium. The cassette tape was initially developed as a dictation medium with sound quality similar to AM radio. The record industry saw a potential market for it and technology improved, but modern cassettes cannot by definition rivel CD or LP. Could they pass an A/B blind test? Sure, but not on a regular basis. Whether your Campbell's soup is the condensed version for 90cents or the Chunky version for $2.99, its still soup in a can. Thats they way it is with cassettes.
Your reference to the Ipod demonstrates a gross missunderstanding about digital playback. An Ipod is neither hi-fi or lo-fi, but is neutral. It is merely a flash drive with a DAC. The data and the compression method, if any, as well as the DAC used will determine whether the sound produced is hi or lo fi. An Ipod running lossless into an Audio Note DAC into Arcam amplification out of a pair of Theils will never, by anyone be considered lofi.
There is no point in continuing this discussion unless you are willing to do some research
Audio magazine did test reports on all the cassette recorders listed.
Read the reports and get back.
I have the reports on the Revox and Tandberg , and if I looked hard enough the Dragon.
I have heard all three , you have not , I have read the test reports , you have not, , but you can get them , you can either go to your local library are maybe find the test reports on your computer.
In the reproduction of music nothing is neutral. Unless one is listening to a live performance , that performance is being reproduced by something. An Ipod is no different.
Even if only relays something to something else it adds something to that something else.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
Most of the cassettes for auto and home used type B for listening and recording. Inferior to type C. The high end Revox's ,Tandberg's and Dragons were outstanding cassette recorders , but they were pricy, even today they bring high prices used.
You should be careful when inferring "Quality" with "Price" in regards to old used equipment. Depending upon the library someone has built up in a specific technology may cause the price to rise regardless of quality.
While I would never argue that 8mm home movies are "top quality" compared to equipment availiable today (HD camcorders with solid state hard drives, 1080p with 5.1 sound etc). The prices for used 8mm home movie players is not 'cheap'.
Its simple supply and demand. If I want to watch old home movies that my dad took, then I need the equipment. I need it regardless of "quality", and since I can't go down to my local BB and pick up new 8mm equipment, I have to "pay" what the market will bear.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
There is no point in continuing this discussion unless you are willing to do some research
Audio magazine did test reports on all the cassette recorders listed.
Read the reports and get back.
I have the reports on the Revox and Tandberg , and if I looked hard enough the Dragon.
I have heard all three , you have not , I have read the test reports , you have not, , but you can get them , you can either go to your local library are maybe find the test reports on your computer.
In the reproduction of music nothing is neutral. Unless one is listening to a live performance , that performance is being reproduced by something. An Ipod is no different.
Even if only relays something to something else it adds something to that something else.
Well Melvin, there is a difference between tape, and digital. I can listen to a CD in the house, car, or burn it onto an IPOD. If I don't compress it, there is no difference in the format chosen. The kicker is, I can listen to it THOUSANDS of times, without any degradation of the format itself.
Listen to a tape more than a handful to times, and there is noticable difference in quality. Listen over 25 times, and the sound can become muddy, fade in and out, and warble. Not to mention that heads get dirty, tapes break, and there isn't any practical way to go from the first song, to the last, to the middle, and then back again.
Tapes had their time in the sun. It has now set, and it is foolish to argue as though tape is going to make a roaring comeback.
It like arguing who makes the best buggy whip. It may be academic, but in the end completely useless. It doesn't forward A/V, nor increase our regard for your opinion.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbeef
You should be careful when inferring "Quality" with "Price" in regards to old used equipment. Depending upon the library someone has built up in a specific technology may cause the price to rise regardless of quality.
While I would never argue that 8mm home movies are "top quality" compared to equipment availiable today (HD camcorders with solid state hard drives, 1080p with 5.1 sound etc). The prices for used 8mm home movie players is not 'cheap'.
Its simple supply and demand. If I want to watch old home movies that my dad took, then I need the equipment. I need it regardless of "quality", and since I can't go down to my local BB and pick up new 8mm equipment, I have to "pay" what the market will bear.
Two quotes " The name does not guarantee the quality , the quality guarantees the name Coco Channel . "The quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten " Gucci.
Revox and Tandberg is revered for their quality in audio. I am not aware that either comany manufactures 8mm films.
Stanley Marcus former chairman of Neiman Marcus was asked " What would be a better choice a new Toyota are a 15 year old 928 Porsche ? " Mr. Marcus's reply was " the 10 year old Porsche , after all it's a $80.000 car ".
Quality is not cheap .
-
Mr. Marcus is a fool for answering that question with incomplete data. Is it a 15 year old car that has sat in a museum or one that has been driven 30,000 miles a year or has it been crashed? Simply making a purchase of anything due to it's name is snobbish at best.
Also, Mistah Hi-Society it's Coco Chanel. The Coco Channel is broadcast out of the Neverland Ranch by chimpanzees.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
Digital Audio Tape ( DAT) was the next step in cassette improvement. DAT was killed off by the fight between the federal government and the performers over rights. By the time that was settled CD's was on the market. As you know when you buy a blank DVD there is royalty charge attached to the DVD.
You're right Melvin. There is no point in continuing debate if you're not going to do any research.
Your assertion "DAT was the next step in cassette improvement" demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about and that it is useless to try to explain to you why you don't know what you are talking about. Anyone who actually knows anything will see immediately what is wrong with your assertion. You sir are a dullard.
-
Screw all you techo-minded, hi-fi wanna-be, hi-faluten stereo snobs and your Cassettes, CDs, DVDs, iPods, and Blue Ray players.
8-TRACK RULES!!!!!
Get with the times people!
JSE
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSE
Screw all you techo-minded, hi-fi wanna-be, hi-faluten stereo snobs and your Cassettes, CDs, DVDs, iPods, and Blue Ray players.
8-TRACK RULES!!!!!
Get with the times people!
JSE
Can you prove that? Got any quotes from 1978 to support your claim?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
I would assume you never heard of Revox , Tandberg and Nakamichi cassette recorders. . They were and still is(sic) the state of the art. All three cassette recorders were high end !.
!
SOTA Cassette:
https://www.audiolinks.com/Califone/4-1300AV.jpg
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
Can you prove that? Got any quotes from 1978 to support your claim?
You know, it really pisses me off when people disagree with me when "I KNOW" it to be so. I read it in JUGS back in 87. Proof enough? I thought so! :incazzato:
Man, the nerve of some people!
JSE
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbeef
Well Melvin, there is a difference between tape, and digital. I can listen to a CD in the house, car, or burn it onto an IPOD. If I don't compress it, there is no difference in the format chosen. The kicker is, I can listen to it THOUSANDS of times, without any degradation of the format itself.
Listen to a tape more than a handful to times, and there is noticable difference in quality. Listen over 25 times, and the sound can become muddy, fade in and out, and warble. Not to mention that heads get dirty, tapes break, and there isn't any practical way to go from the first song, to the last, to the middle, and then back again.
Tapes had their time in the sun. It has now set, and it is foolish to argue as though tape is going to make a roaring comeback.
It like arguing who makes the best buggy whip. It may be academic, but in the end completely useless. It doesn't forward A/V, nor increase our regard for your opinion.
Tape is still used where editing is a most. Your reruns on television is tape. You may play a song a thousand times , was it recorded on high end equipment ? or average equipment.
If it was recorded on average audio equipment than you have just listened to a recording a thousand times and the sound is average.
If the tape is taken care of , it can last for years. and if it is recorded on high end equipment and played back on high end equipment I see no reason why the sound should not be excellent.
The problem is what is the quality of the audio gear that is being used. Remember what Mr. Marcus eluded to , a 15 year old Porsche is a $80,000 car , the manufacturer was able to put excellent parts in the car because he could charge $80,000 !
The Toyota had to cut corners , he could not put quality parts in the car it would have increased the price and no one is going to spend $80,000 for a Toyota.
While new it is still not as well made nor can it perform as well as a Porsche.
In audio it is no different , you may play a song on your iPOD a thousand times , but on what kind of audio equipment did you use to record that song.?
-
It's probably worth noting that digital is "transfered" and not recorded. This can be done at a completely lossless rate...again and again and again. There is no differential in the particular "recording" process to which you refer.
And, Mr. Marcus is still a fool.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSE
You know, it really pisses me off when people disagree with me when "I KNOW" it to be so. I read it in JUGS back in 87. Proof enough? I thought so! :incazzato:
Man, the nerve of some people!
JSE
I still have that issue!!! :thumbsup:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
To what loose language are you referring Mel? Or, are you utilizing the inference and assumption that you ask us not to use when reviewing your posts...
By the bye, my diplomacy and etiquette skills are quite refined, at least to the point that they've helped me land a professional position affording me the opportunity to enjoy some of the very equipment about which you opine. Kinda scary isn't it, you and I could show up at the same social gathering...you with your rudy-poo auto luminaries and me with your grand-daughter...I'll try and mind my tongue in your august presence.
Wait a minute! That was a line by Moe on the Three Stooges when the professors (I think one professor's name was Dr. Melvin Walker) tried to make them into the Hoy-pulloy. Maybe that party was at Melvin's house. The guests looked like a bunch of pompous a$$es ya know?
|