What was it like ?

[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

[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.

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

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

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


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


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 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.