The Golden Age of Records
- Thread starter karma
- Start date
Hi
I would have thought the same. I went back a few years to a Sound Advice, was a large-ish chain of High End Stores in the Miami Metropolitan Area.. They had a Denon Receiver hooked to Martin-Logan Summit .. Well the Denon drove the Summit and the top of the line center chanel to deafening SPL. I wouldn't qualify the sound as great it was however good. Of course hooking up the Krell Pre-Pro and multi-ch amp brought and immediate and truly night and day difference even at lower volume but .. again, the Denon AVR? Drive the ML Summit it did...
I was also quite shocked some years ago to hear a decent sounding Surround System at a CES with Wilson WP-6 or 7 and they were driven by a Sony Esprit AVR ... Sound from SACD was good and so was the HT sound ...
I would have thought the same. I went back a few years to a Sound Advice, was a large-ish chain of High End Stores in the Miami Metropolitan Area.. They had a Denon Receiver hooked to Martin-Logan Summit .. Well the Denon drove the Summit and the top of the line center chanel to deafening SPL. I wouldn't qualify the sound as great it was however good. Of course hooking up the Krell Pre-Pro and multi-ch amp brought and immediate and truly night and day difference even at lower volume but .. again, the Denon AVR? Drive the ML Summit it did...
I was also quite shocked some years ago to hear a decent sounding Surround System at a CES with Wilson WP-6 or 7 and they were driven by a Sony Esprit AVR ... Sound from SACD was good and so was the HT sound ...
HI All,
Are you willing to come back to the subject? This is getting ridiculous and non-functional!!
Sparky
Are you willing to come back to the subject? This is getting ridiculous and non-functional!!
Sparky
And I've had more than a few give up the ghost eg. pop a protective fuse
And guess there's a diff. between driving and sounding good. Let's be honest. You need a pretty good PS to drive low impedance loads. That's why Krell coasts driving difficult loads; so does the cj ART
Sparky, I may be one of the only people here who enjoys both ss and tubes. Owning a tube amp and a ss amp. Practicality of tubes....not compared to ss, BUT a very different presentation and I would NOT want to be without them or for that matter without the ss amp.
The Biasing of my tube amp is a nightmare so from that stand point, no contest with ss.
Do I remember the sound of early ss gear...yes, but who wants to! Very hard and bright with no warmth at all ( which is why I really like tubes)
Warmth is so VERY important in musical presentation, but today we unfortunately have gone and are still going away from that with some of our gear. particularly our speakers...which is IMO a mistake.
BTW, Tim, I really do NOT see how one can compare tube guitar amps to tube audio amps, BUT I guess that's just me.
. Owning a tube amp and a ss amp. Practicality of tubes....not compared to ss, BUT a very different presentation and I would NOT want to be without them or for that matter without the ss amp.The Biasing of my tube amp is a nightmare so from that stand point, no contest with ss.
Do I remember the sound of early ss gear...yes, but who wants to! Very hard and bright with no warmth at all ( which is why I really like tubes)
Warmth is so VERY important in musical presentation, but today we unfortunately have gone and are still going away from that with some of our gear. particularly our speakers...which is IMO a mistake.
BTW, Tim, I really do NOT see how one can compare tube guitar amps to tube audio amps, BUT I guess that's just me.
HI Davy,
I also own both tubes (ARC) and SS (Krell). The Krell stuff is very good but I prefer my tube equipment. Basically, ARC amplification has little or no signatures. I would say ARC is just as neutral as the Krell. But, the tube equipment has a subtly that the Krell cannot match. I like the tubes much better.
But I use my Krell system much more. It drives my HT system and provides all background music. I refuse to waste expensive tubes on background tasks and movies. If push came to shove, I could live with my Krell system. I may have to after I retire due to the expense to maintaining the ARC system.
Sparky
I also own both tubes (ARC) and SS (Krell). The Krell stuff is very good but I prefer my tube equipment. Basically, ARC amplification has little or no signatures. I would say ARC is just as neutral as the Krell. But, the tube equipment has a subtly that the Krell cannot match. I like the tubes much better.
But I use my Krell system much more. It drives my HT system and provides all background music. I refuse to waste expensive tubes on background tasks and movies. If push came to shove, I could live with my Krell system. I may have to after I retire due to the expense to maintaining the ARC system.
Sparky
Last edited by a moderator:
Sparky, have you tried putting your Krell gear in your main system?
I alternate in my system between my ARC amp and my Rowland amp, the Rowland is so good that it not only competes with the ARC but in some ways betters it. The ARC is slightly better in its portrayal of depth and very slightly better in its portrayal of timbre, the Rowland has far more bass control and throws a slightly larger stage than the ARC. Otherwise due to the great warmth of the Rowland they have many similarities, which IMO speaks loudly for the Rowland.
Krells are not known for their warmth and I wonder if this is what you are missing in the ss realm.
I alternate in my system between my ARC amp and my Rowland amp, the Rowland is so good that it not only competes with the ARC but in some ways betters it. The ARC is slightly better in its portrayal of depth and very slightly better in its portrayal of timbre, the Rowland has far more bass control and throws a slightly larger stage than the ARC. Otherwise due to the great warmth of the Rowland they have many similarities, which IMO speaks loudly for the Rowland.
Krells are not known for their warmth and I wonder if this is what you are missing in the ss realm.
Sparky, have you tried putting your Krell gear in your main system?
I alternate in my system between my ARC amp and my Rowland amp, the Rowland is so good that it not only competes with the ARC but in some ways betters it. The ARC is slightly better in its portrayal of depth and very slightly better in its portrayal of timbre, the Rowland has far more bass control and throws a slightly larger stage than the ARC. Otherwise due to the great warmth of the Rowland they have many similarities, which IMO speaks loudly for the Rowland.
Krells are not known for their warmth and I wonder if this is what you are missing in the ss realm.
HI Davy,
If warmth is what I'm after, I would not have ARC. I'm after neutrality which ARC excels at. No, my ARC sound has nuance and subtlety that I have not heard in any SS equipment. But, I've not heard it all by any means. And yes, I subbed in my Krell for the ARC in my main Martin Logan CLS IIA system. Because that system uses dual, biamped sub woofers, neither the ARC amp or the Krell really has to stretch in the bass. The bass is handled by a Mark Levinson No. 23 amp (400W/chan into the subs 4 ohm loads) which does a great job.
I love Roland amps. They are some of my favorites. But I have not heard them for a while. My last impression is they sounded like an FET design. Very smooth, linear, easy on the ears but slightly rolled off in the treble including micro details. My Krell sound is faster, response from DC to light, and, on some recordings harder on the ears but never grainy. I consider the Krell sound to be very well balanced and lacking signatures. Since my HT system also uses dual biamped subs, even here the Krell does not get to use its prodigious bass capability. I like the Krell's a lot.
As far as alternating amps, ugh! These suckers are heavy and I'm 70 years old. I'm not into recreational amp lifting. Maybe I should get a strong wife. No, I don't see the point.
Since you keep mentioning warmth, and I never do, I suspect we have different sonic priorities. This may be a case where I hear and admire and like but would not own.
What are you speakers?
Sparky
Thinking about this further, I think you're right, the 741's were not the first on the scene. There was another one which the 741's improved upon, but I can't recall the number. Probably most of the really early SS was discrete but poorly designed or populated circuits.
There was also a late 60's early 70's movement to class A discrete circuits in potted modules. Melcor and API were two of them. They actually could sound pretty decent if implemented properly. But they were quite finicky about ground currents and rail decoupling.
--Bill
HI bblue,
In 1965, semiconductor and IC technology was very primitive. TTL was not yet developed, DTL was the dominant logic technology, and IC op amps were still in the future. Even FET's had not been developed yet as a commercial product. The op amp concept already existed because the topology was developed to be the arithmetic elements in ANALOG computers. But these circuits were all discrete and were not good at AC signal handling. In fact they were plain terrible being slow, noisy and with very poor transient response and DC stability. In fact they were almost all made from vacuum tubes which gave better performance than semiconductors. Transistors were very bad with almost all using germanium semi-conductor material with very poor temperature stability. Silicon NPN's were just starting to appear and balanced PNP/NPN pairs could only be had by special order using hand selecting techniques and, even so, they were not well matched. We did not even have circuit design engineers that understood solid state circuit design. Most of the engineers had to learn on the job. Universities were still teaching tube design.
I was working in the space program at that time as a young technician. I saw all this happen in real time. In 1964 all of our digital telemetry equipment was designed with tubes! Yes, this means that all the basic logic elements such as flip flops, gates, decoders, counters, etc. were vacuum tube circuits. All the analog amplification was made from tubes. We started a slow transition to semiconductors using germanium PNP devices. They were slow! But, they were more reliable than tubes so the impetus to continue was strong. We grew with our designs as the semiconductor industry pushed for better devices.
In general 1965 was very early in the development of semiconductors. Because of the obvious potential advantages of transistors, a gigantic development effort was invested in the technology and they improved fast. But not fast enough to prevent the demise of the Golden Age of records.
I can assure you that in 1965, the cut off for the GA of records, transistorized amplification was terrible.
Sparky
In 1965, semiconductor and IC technology was very primitive. TTL was not yet developed, DTL was the dominant logic technology, and IC op amps were still in the future. Even FET's had not been developed yet as a commercial product. The op amp concept already existed because the topology was developed to be the arithmetic elements in ANALOG computers. But these circuits were all discrete and were not good at AC signal handling. In fact they were plain terrible being slow, noisy and with very poor transient response and DC stability. In fact they were almost all made from vacuum tubes which gave better performance than semiconductors. Transistors were very bad with almost all using germanium semi-conductor material with very poor temperature stability. Silicon NPN's were just starting to appear and balanced PNP/NPN pairs could only be had by special order using hand selecting techniques and, even so, they were not well matched. We did not even have circuit design engineers that understood solid state circuit design. Most of the engineers had to learn on the job. Universities were still teaching tube design.
I was working in the space program at that time as a young technician. I saw all this happen in real time. In 1964 all of our digital telemetry equipment was designed with tubes! Yes, this means that all the basic logic elements such as flip flops, gates, decoders, counters, etc. were vacuum tube circuits. All the analog amplification was made from tubes. We started a slow transition to semiconductors using germanium PNP devices. They were slow! But, they were more reliable than tubes so the impetus to continue was strong. We grew with our designs as the semiconductor industry pushed for better devices.
In general 1965 was very early in the development of semiconductors. Because of the obvious potential advantages of transistors, a gigantic development effort was invested in the technology and they improved fast. But not fast enough to prevent the demise of the Golden Age of records.
I can assure you that in 1965, the cut off for the GA of records, transistorized amplification was terrible.
Sparky
Last edited:
Sparky, I actually do like warmth in my reproduction of sound
. I know this aspect is very out of vogue in audio right now, however, I think the term "neutrality" is an ideal that is not as realistic as one would hope. What I mean by this, is that a "neutral" sounding product is IMHO usually anything but, it is instead many times cold and lifeless, exactly the opposite to warm and alive. IMO, music in real life runs the gamut from a) warm and enveloping ( where it is usually best received and where it makes the most impact) to b) sterile and hard. Is warmth a distortion....IF you believe the main stream audio press...absolutely! Are tube amps warm sounding in this day and age....IMO most of them are in fact that way, are ss amps more neutral...IMO, they used to be more so than today, The Dart's and others of their ilk are leaning towards the warmth area. ( OK, flame suit on )An example of my thinking are the Halcro amps that were so adored by many reviewers just a few years back....supposedly one of the most neutral amps ever made. The distortion specs on them were astounding
When I had the opportunity to hear the Halcro, I wondered what all the hype was about....Yes, the price category was there, the looks were good, the seeming build quality was there, only thing was the sound was soooo sterile and to me cold that i thought I was listening again to my old Hafler D220 amp form the 80's. You ask about my speakers, I use the Sonus Faber Guarneri Hommage. I know that many people feel all Sonus Faber's are warm sounding and NOT neutral, this could well be, BUT in the reproduction of strings, I have NEVER heard a better speaker than my GH's! It is my understanding this speaker is now beginning to receive worldwide acclaim for the magic it brings to the table...is it warm sounding....Thank God..YES!!
...only thing was the sound was soooo sterile and to me cold that i thought I was listening again to my old Hafler D220 amp form the 80's.
Uh oh. I hear Tom firing up his Commodore 64 computer.
Tim,
I'm starting to believe that your experience with Analog is limited and I am being kind when I say this. Your gross generalizations about the preferences of analog listeners and our results are just that gross. I'll give you Witches Brew on 45rpm or even Alain and Poulanc on 33 1/3 Proprius and you tell me if brass doesn't sound like brass and that you won't feel pipe organ in your bones. This is WBF home of the big rigs. Mike, Marty, Jim, Holli88, Steve, Albert, Mep, myself and many more are pushing wattage in the kilowatts including subs into sensitive loudspeakers resulting in linear in room responses with analog sources themselves designed to combat acoustic feedback. We've got the headroom, the detail and the rooms to handle them. This isn't your music store.
HI Davy,
I never take issue with a persons taste as long as I think they know enough to understand what they like. I think you do. So, I have no issues.
But, I will discuss signatures. If a system always has the same character no matter the program material, I sense a signature. If, OTH, the character of the system changes according to the program material, I sense no signature. That's what I want and that's what I have.
I have spent decades achieving this sound. It's like a chameleon. When the material sounds warm, the system sounds warm. If the material sounds icy, the system sounds icy. If the material is neutral, the system sounds neutral. I believe this is the holy grail of hi fi sound reproduction and very hard to achieve. The only way to know if neutral is actual, is to hear the sonic personality change.
I am certain I would like your system in an audition. But, living with a system for years is a different thing. Over the years one can pin point the sonic character and decide if it is liked or to change it if not. Except for some relatively minor changes, like the addition of the Aesthetix Rhea phono preamp a couple of years ago which has the neutrality I look for, I have not changed my system for over twenty years. I must like it.
I've never heard anything but great comments about your speakers. The Sonus speakers I have heard I liked very much. They have only one problem. They are not ESL's. but, that's just me and my life long love affair with ESL's.
Sparky
I never take issue with a persons taste as long as I think they know enough to understand what they like. I think you do. So, I have no issues.
But, I will discuss signatures. If a system always has the same character no matter the program material, I sense a signature. If, OTH, the character of the system changes according to the program material, I sense no signature. That's what I want and that's what I have.
I have spent decades achieving this sound. It's like a chameleon. When the material sounds warm, the system sounds warm. If the material sounds icy, the system sounds icy. If the material is neutral, the system sounds neutral. I believe this is the holy grail of hi fi sound reproduction and very hard to achieve. The only way to know if neutral is actual, is to hear the sonic personality change.
I am certain I would like your system in an audition. But, living with a system for years is a different thing. Over the years one can pin point the sonic character and decide if it is liked or to change it if not. Except for some relatively minor changes, like the addition of the Aesthetix Rhea phono preamp a couple of years ago which has the neutrality I look for, I have not changed my system for over twenty years. I must like it.
I've never heard anything but great comments about your speakers. The Sonus speakers I have heard I liked very much. They have only one problem. They are not ESL's. but, that's just me and my life long love affair with ESL's.
Sparky
No argument from me. Throughout the mid-late sixties I was repairing tape and audio equipment, mostly SS and was quite aware of how it sounded compared to (well designed) tube counterparts. There was cruddy tube equipment too, but even it was better.
What I take exception to, as do others here, is your position that suddenly in 1965 the music industry changed and the GA ceased to exist. It just isn't so. It was the start of a slow transition which made (some) studio and consumer audio worse for a long time before they got better, but it was gradual and went hand in hand to other changes in the industry, such as types of recording, types of groups and other such things as I have previously described.
Flipping a switch might be your impression of it, but that's not how it was from my viewpoint. And I was in the industry at the time... and for the following 15 years or more.
--Bill
HI Bill,
I have several points maybe you can help clear up. From the record collectors (they are the experts here) point of view, there was, as I understand, a definite GA time period and the cut off date was 1965. In other words if you advertised that you have a GA record for sale from, say, 1967, they would be skeptical simply because of the date, among, probably other things. Is this true? I think it is.
If so, why are they so firm about the date? This is the only reason I chose 1965 as the cut off. All the rest of my questions stem from this question.
Next, there is no doubt that records from top notch record companies, that produced GA recordings prior to 1965, were not producing them after 1965. So the collectors say. Why is this?
There is no doubt that transistors started their march into consumer electronics about 1965. Right? Is this just coincidence?
Is there any reason to believe that there was not a similar march into commercial recording studios about the same time? Is this just coincidence?
Actually, I don't believe in coincidences at all. There are always reasons.
Given that there was very strong competition for the consumer market and the real possibility that transistorized studio equipment would cut costs considerably, would there not be a rush to take advantage of the economic advantages offered by new equipment - like immediately? Remember, new equipment can always be depreciated while the old stuff (tubes) had already been depreciated to the maximum allowed.
Would not all record companies be viewing the future with the same crystal balls? If they did not make the change as soon as possible, they would be in a difficult competitive position. I think this would be the reason for the very fast transition I am talking about driven by pure market forces.
And last, nobody seems to argue with the point that the first generation transistorized equipment sounded bad.
One last point that I haven't made up to now. Is there any reason to think that the transistorized professional studio equipment sounded any better than the high end consumer transistorized equipment being sold at the same time? My inclination is to say no. Traditionally, profesional studio equipment has not sounded better. But, this could be a point for debate. Remember, I said high end stuff like Mc Intosh, for example.
I don't think the transition was instant. I'm sure there were small companies that transitioned more slowly. But these would be the small labels. The labels that had contracts with the famous orchestras like the Chicago Symphony, the Philadelphia Orchestra, The New York Philharmonic, etc. were the large companies. Minor labels mentioned in this thread like Everest (I don't understand the attachment to Everest because I never considered them to be major or even good), Command (small and very specialized) and others probably made the transition slower. If true, they put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Stock holders don't like that. So, this could make the 1965 cut off possibly fuzzy and with exceptions. I will concede that.
All I'm trying to do is pull together the existing evidence to see if a case can be made for what seems to be a very strange situation, namely the GA itself.
Help me if you can, Sparky
One transition that hasn't been mentioned is the transition from mono to stereo during this time period. Studios, producers, engineers and musicians were comfortable with recording in mono and many early stereo recordings were afterthoughts with folded down mono. This really hit home for me when reading Geoffrey Emrick's book "Here, There and Everywhere". He was the legendary recording engineer for the Beatles and his book makes it clear that their records were optimized for mono. IME, most 50's and early to mid 60's jazz and pop records almost always sound better in mono
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
This is why I first mentioned "Wall of Sound". Back in the early sixties, Phil Spector wanted to make a better production for AM radio. He created this over dubbing of instruments and such. Then, every engineer wanted to emulate this "effect".
Similar threads
