Hi fi junk vs great art and musical instruments

Martin Logan may be uniquely problematic because unlike Quads, where panels are reusable across models, CLS panels are not even transferable across versions of the same speaker. I found that my vintage CLS panels could not be upgraded using CLS II panels. The company was not particularly helpful. I still have three pairs of Quads, which at least can be upgraded in the field by a number of expert aftermarket specialists (Kent McCollum or Sheldon Stokes) as the design is very amenable to servicing by aftermarket service personnel. Ultimately I realized my CLS’es were just a doorstop.

In my 35+ years of buying high end audio, I have found numerous products to be not just unreliable but really poorly designed. Numerous transports have failed on me repeatedly (dCS Verdi, Levinson 37 etc.). Krell preamps that have had failed displays etc.

In my experience, only two products have lasted without failures. One is ARC preamps, amps and CD players. They are built so well that aside from tube replacement, no maintenance is needed for decades. Not surprised that ARC preamps from 40 years ago still command a good price. The second is my original Quad ESL 57. Kent tells me it’s the most reliable Quad ever made. As long as you don’t overdrive it or you install the protection circuitry, it lasts forever. My pair is 50 years old, works perfectly still and, in terms of what it does well, still runs rings around any modern loudspeaker no matter the price. My pair I will not sell whatever price I’m offered. The 57 is that rare component that still is decades ahead of the competition. Stylistically it’s also leagues ahead. The bronze Bahaus style is still much nicer than most modern speaker monstrosities.

I also acquired recently a new pair of Klipsch La Scalas, my first pair of horns. Again, a timeless design from 60+ years ago that is miles ahead of the competition. One watt into the La Scala produces a lower distortion output than any modern speaker. I use a 45 SET and it barely produces a few milliwatts to generate sufficient volume for me. The La Scala again is a timeless classic design that looks like a piece of furniture — a large end table or cabinet — rather than a hideous looking loudspeaker. Paul Klipsch gets my vote as America’s most ingenious designer who was many decades ahead of the competition. He understood in the 1950s what most speaker designers in 2023 don’t get. Efficiency is the key to low distortion. If the radiating unit barely moves by a few microns, it’s not distorting. The La Scala can play at 100 dB with 0.2% distortion at 50 Hz. Few if any modern designs can match that. The directivity is controlled by the Tractrix horn shape. But they are large and expensive to make. They won’t thump your room with high distortion bass either.

If there ever is a Louvre type museum for high end audio, I’d vote to put the ESL 57 and the La Scalas in the speaker category. Of course, 300 years from now, if humanity is still around, we will be using neural implants to store all recorded music streamed right into your brain. No need for any external hifi gadgetry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lee
Rather than hi-fi, buy Leica film cameras. A 1950s - 1960s Leica, manual operation, of course, is worth ten times today what it sold for when new decades ago. But I do prefer my hi-fi when it comes to making music.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Another Johnson
Rather than hi-fi, buy Leica film cameras. A 1950s - 1960s Leica, manual operation, of course, is worth ten times today what it sold for when new decades ago. But I do prefer my hi-fi when it comes to making music.
But is Leica the equivalent of digital in audio and Hasselblad is analog? :)
 
I owned the Hasselblad H6D-100c medium format camera for a couple of years before I sold it along with a large collection of lenses. It was and still is the best digital camera I have ever owned and the stunning 100 megapixel medium format images it produced can only be described as “analog film quality” in terms of their sheer naturalness. Hasselblad individually calibrates each unit to maximize the 16-bit dynamic range and the color reproduction leaves all other cameras in the dust in my experience. I ended up getting a Sony Alpha 1 that I use now. The Sony is much lighter and easier to use and has 8k video capability. But it produces flat looking images that scream “digital”. It’s like comparing the greatest films made in analog — such as David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia which I was lucky enough to see in its 70mm glory — with modern digitally made movies that just seem so boring in comparison.
 
Rather than hi-fi, buy Leica film cameras. A 1950s - 1960s Leica, manual operation, of course, is worth ten times today what it sold for when new decades ago. But I do prefer my hi-fi when it comes to making music.
Leica range finders are certainly a camera everyone should own once. I personally liked their Monochrom series the best. Everyone forgets that digital cameras do not “see” color like our eyes do. The CCD or CMOS sensor only sees grayscale. Color is induced artificially through a Bayer color filter that is superimposed on the grayscale sensor. You lose a lot of light gathering ability using the color filter. The Leica Monochrom cameras throw away the Bayer filter. My first impression when I saw the black and white images produced by a Monochrom was “holy shit!” I was flabbergasted to see how much better it was. There is a huge increase in contrast and the ability to capture gray scale contrasts. If you are a serious photographer, you should own a Monochrom. They are pricey but unmatched at what they do. Color anyway is for silly Instagram postings. Real photography is all black and white.

I have a lot of older jazz vinyl where the pictures are black and white made on film cameras 60-80 years ago or more. They leave modern digital cameras in the dust. Digital cameras produce ugly color pictures. Analog black and white cameras produce stunning images that have deep contrasts between light and dark. There’s a sense of depth in black and white images completely lost in color.
 
Leica range finders are certainly a camera everyone should own once. I personally liked their Monochrom series the best. Everyone forgets that digital cameras do not “see” color like our eyes do. The CCD or CMOS sensor only sees grayscale. Color is induced artificially through a Bayer color filter that is superimposed on the grayscale sensor. You lose a lot of light gathering ability using the color filter. The Leica Monochrom cameras throw away the Bayer filter. My first impression when I saw the black and white images produced by a Monochrom was “holy shit!” I was flabbergasted to see how much better it was. There is a huge increase in contrast and the ability to capture gray scale contrasts. If you are a serious photographer, you should own a Monochrom. They are pricey but unmatched at what they do. Color anyway is for silly Instagram postings. Real photography is all black and white.

I have a lot of older jazz vinyl where the pictures are black and white made on film cameras 60-80 years ago or more. They leave modern digital cameras in the dust. Digital cameras produce ugly color pictures. Analog black and white cameras produce stunning images that have deep contrasts between light and dark. There’s a sense of depth in black and white images completely lost in color.
my experience with Leica and Hasselblad were many years ago, pre-digital (aka film). Both were excellent and I used (did not own) both with black and white film ('cause I thought I was artsy). I'm not sure who I thought I was using the Leica, but I felt like Ansel Adams using the Hasselblad for nature photos. Youth can make you so optimistic. :) I can't say I had a preference because they both were the best at what they did best.

I too love those black and white photos of Jazz musicians (being a Jazz fan). "Jazz People" with photos by Ole Brask captures musicians at "work."

Regarding audio, I would liken Telarc recordings to Leica and Blue Note to Hasselblad.
 
Rather than hi-fi, buy Leica film cameras. A 1950s - 1960s Leica, manual operation, of course, is worth ten times today what it sold for when new decades ago. But I do prefer my hi-fi when it comes to making music.
Even the Q series Leicas that I own hold their value well.
 
Leica film cameras are going up in value -- generally speaking; model, year, condition, all being wild cards -- but Leica digital does not hold its value so well. There are still parts and repair available for Leica film cameras, too. This is what my camera dealer is telling me. I have used Hasselblad for 50 years. It is a favorite, especially for landscape. But a Leica film camera has been my constant travel companion for many years. Getting to be a drag lugging film around, though. As for hi-fi, I just had to part with my old Krell Evolution CD/SACD player. Could no longer be repaired. Now it is absolutely worthless. The third CD player i have had to send to the hi-fi graveyard in recent years.
 
I know nothing about the value of old collectable cameras. However, when I was sitting next to my niece's father-in-law (because her mother heard he was a hi-fi enthusiast) I started by asking him about his hi-fi system. That topic lasted about 60 seconds when he said he had a nice system but couldn't remember the brand name, (let along the model) of anything in his system. I then asked him about what his interests were. He said he collected old cameras, cars, and watches. (He is quite wealthy). I started with cameras and he told me about flying to Germany (we live in California) to buy an old Leica (don't remember the details, but I think it was maybe from the 1930's - I think it was pre WWII.) Didn't get around to have him talk about his watches, but he said he had a box which was motorized so it kept a bunch of his self winding watches going. He did start on his car collection which at one point numbered around 150, but at that time (around 2017) he was only buying one La Ferrari per year. I asked him how many Ferraris he had bought and he said about 30, but he had sold quite a few of them over the years. Next dinner, I asked my son-in-law to sit next to him, since he knew a lot more about cars than I did.

Larry
 
A good audio product will always be desired and praised. If it becomes junk over the years then it was junk in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Republicoftexas69
Beauty is in the ear and eye of the beholder. One mans garbage is another mans gold. If it sounds good it is good. Thats all the clichés I have today.
 
Here‘s a great example. There was this guy Bob Ross who for years was featured on the PBS’ television show “Joy of Painting”. He used to teach you how to paint in 30 minutes. My mom used to enjoy watching his shows. Part of what made the show was his joy and enthusiasm. No one would have considered anything he did great art. And yet! Remarkably, the first painting he did on that show just sold at auction for a staggering $10 million. Who would have imagined that a few years ago?

 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: Lee and PYP
Don’t forget this one (by Banksy)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_is_in_the_Bin#:~:text=According%20to%20Sotheby's%2C%20it%20is,Love%20is%20in%20the%20Bin.

As for Stradivarii, they are no longer owned, but loaned. A deep pockets benefactor buys the violin from like kind, and then loans it to the artist whom the benefactor decides could use it best, sometimes for a literal lifetime. It is a true patronage.

Can you imagine a HiFi component increasing in value until only a few hyperwealthy people could afford it … and then it would be bought by one, and loaned out to the so-called Golden Ear who could most benefit from listening to it?

I am kidding on the level.

Here’s one more art exhibition

 
Here‘s a great example. There was this guy Bob Ross who for years was featured on the PBS’ television show “Joy of Painting”. He used to teach you how to paint in 30 minutes. My mom used to enjoy watching his shows. Part of what made the show was his joy and enthusiasm. No one would have considered anything he did great art. And yet! Remarkably, the first painting he did on that show just sold at auction for a staggering $10 million. Who would have imagined that a few years ago?


Bob ross is like a therapist , puts you to sleep in no time

 
Apart from me experimenting with speaker designs .
HIFI hasn t cost me anything over the past 13 years .
Just stay out of this cable/ power conditioner/ reviewer nonsense and all is fine.

Actually my hifi system gained in value due to tape machine appreciation
 
“a 1920’s ultra minimalist circuit from the inventors of amplification, using parts they only dreamed of...

triodes loaded by transformers… so simple... so beautiful... and still the ideal one hundred years later...”

How EMIA describes their amp.
It’s all perception.

Jeff Day loves his vintage McIntosh MC30 monoblocks and C8 preamp above anything he might replace them with.
 
Whilst I've owned Quad 57s since 1975, they were superseded by 63 which I found superior in just about every way! (this'll be contentious!). My present Quad 2812s replaced the 63s, and after much experimentation with height adjustment (they are now raised up by 4") are my favourites of all time.
My dining room system comes under the heading of 'yesterday's latest becoming junk'....except this is older than most of Picasso's oeuvre, so highly valued today!
 

Attachments

  • DSCN0183.JPG
    DSCN0183.JPG
    881.9 KB · Views: 10
I am now listening to my Quad 2905s placed in my long narrow dining room, driven by a pair of monster ARC Ref 210 tube monoblocks that use 8 KT120 tubes per channel to put out about 250 watts. The weather has turned cool enough in the Bay Area to run these behemoths that put out about 400 watts each in idle! But the sound is absolutely divine, the big ARC amps do wonders in enhancing the bass of the Quads where their impedances are very high causing solid state amps to completely lose control. The front end is my prized Lampizator Pacific, the only DAC I have that looks as great as it sounds driven into an ARC Ref 6SE tube preamp. The combo is sinfully delicious, a hedonistic aural experience.

IMG_5641.jpeg
 
I am now listening to my Quad 2905s placed in my long narrow dining room, driven by a pair of monster ARC Ref 210 tube monoblocks that use 8 KT120 tubes per channel to put out about 250 watts. The weather has turned cool enough in the Bay Area to run these behemoths that put out about 400 watts each in idle! But the sound is absolutely divine, the big ARC amps do wonders in enhancing the bass of the Quads where their impedances are very high causing solid state amps to completely lose control. The front end is my prized Lampizator Pacific, the only DAC I have that looks as great as it sounds driven into an ARC Ref 6SE tube preamp. The combo is sinfully delicious, a hedonistic aural experience.

View attachment 121809
For you.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu