Now, how about comparing a Micro Seiki SX8000II to a TechDAS AF1P, an SME 3012R to a V-12, an Ortofon SL-15 to an A95? Sometimes, technology does not really march forward. Different surely, sonically more convincing, it depends. I agree with Lee that we should have an open mind.
The Long Memory of Audiophiles
- Thread starter Lee
- Start date
Now, how about comparing a Micro Seiki SX8000II to a TechDAS AF1P, an SME 3012R to a V-12, an Ortofon SL-15 to an A95? Sometimes, technology does not really march forward. Different surely, sonically more convincing, it depends. I agree with Lee that we should have an open mind.
I am less sure about this Peter but we do agree that an open mind should include the possibility of select older setting a high standard.
I fully agree with you. Just because a new product shows does not mean the old was faulty - very often the old model represents greater value for money at a discount price.
However this is an hobby ruled by preference and sometimes our individual preference is triggered by small differences. And it seems we are happy to pay for this difference!
Such comparisons as you describe will be just manifestations of preference on vinyl distortions ... As I say , interesting individual experiences.
However as I listen to all media - tape, vinyl and digital I needed a frame of reference to center the evolution of my system. I used my standard Studer A80 and dCS Vivaldi as reference to evaluate turntables and found that IMO the TechDas AF1P with suction using the Graham tonearm was my best choice to my system. No experience with the SX8000, the vintage representation was assured by the EMT 927/SME3012R.
But surely, if my listening was mainly vintage LPs my system would be very different.
it is interesting that people actually prefer the original ML2 amplifier to later iterations. Nothing to do with newness or cost only sound. I’d rather have a Neumann cartridge than any cartridge available today. I’m not alone and that is reflected in the cost.
if I knew then what I know now, my audio journey would’ve been very different and I would’ve saved a lot of money.
since everything is distorted, and we keep reading that all speakers and all systems are compromises, are not all our choices manifestations of preference on distortions? Surely we can’t argue gear preferences just like we can’t argue music preferences.
A few observations ...
I think you realize you are talking your book; its your job, so understandable. Very rarely do publications cover products no longer in production. An emphasis on the new is in your dna.
I don't think that changes the points you raise per se. History is inescapable and so is memory. That products leave poor impressions in people's minds is experienced based and quite possibly those products were extolled by publications at one point. And those reviews are still out there to be read. We read about the new but such readings rarely point out past weaknesses as weaknesses overcome.
You say it is hard to put aside old prejudices. Perhaps that is true. Nonetheless, those "prejudices" (assessments really) were built on experience. Since you like sports aphorisms, I'll give you another one that goes out to manufacturers, this time from Redskins coach George Allen: "The future is now." What products do today will echo forward. It took the 20th Century to arrive for Audio Research to start moving away from the tin-foil-in-your- mouth sound of their amplifiers in the 1980s and 90s.
You observe "1. Audiophiles judge a new product by past products a company has had." There you talk about things like innovation, reliability and service -- considerations about a company. Reviews judge new products against past products but rarely talk about reliability and service from the company.
Many/most manufacturers need to keep their name in the press so we get continual Mark 2s and Version 3s. In an effort "to be new" sonics get changed, and while new sonics may have entertaining effects they can lead away from the sound of live acoustic music. Consider the continued addition of signal filtering in certain lines of cables. The reviewing community consistently compares the new Y to the old X, as in your Rossini example, which yields constant churn and constantly shifting references. Although flawed in how he implemented it, Harry Pearson put a reference stake in the ground that, in theory, did not change.
The used market is huge. I"m waiting for a publication that reviews past products and compares them to current products. There are many people and publications that engrave in stone: New is Better. Talk of 'vintage' this and that, particularly vintage sound does a disservice to buyers. Pity the manufacturer who gets it right the first time. Once again (no doubt to the annoyance of some) I'll draw on Vladimir Lamm. He made so few updates to his designs -- designs based on extensive testing with real people -- because human hearing has hardly changed over time.
I tend to agree with you that "materials, parts quality, and engineering approaches are ever getting better". But it does not follow from that alone that sound is getting better. Whether such changes alone lead to the somewhat presumptuous "rightfully earned time in the spotlight" will be up to the consumer.
Totally off topic: I really like the new TAS cover design - much better, more journal-like, than the previous shouting tabloid design.
I was interested by this movement. As far as I could see It was triggered in the Romy the Cat forum, the best source of disinformation about Lamm in the internet. Vladimir Lamm addressed it. Except for a few isolated cases that made a lot of noise I could not find any person supporting this view in a solid way.
The question is not of being alone - you and a few others are isolated cases. The great majority of audiophiles prefer and own other cartridges.
Surely audiophile knowledge has a monetary cost - the cost of experimentation. But I had a lot of enjoyment and fun in my audio journey and I still have hope of seeling the ML3's, independently of the damage that Romy the Cat did to the product.
I foresee that the family of the editor will starve ...
This happens most of the time, although we surely have exceptions. Some people still say that nothing beats a mono recording.
No annoyance at all, but you can't substantiated a theory based on rumors. I respect Vladimir Lamm and his designs, but we never saw any evidence of his tests and models. BTW , human hearing has hardly changed over time, but stereo has changed a lot along time.
The point is that today we have a much better understanding of the mechanisms of stereo sound reproduction - if you have doubts just look at the hundreds of references of the Toole book. And the top technology (materials, parts quality and engineering approaches, as you say ) allow designers and manufacturers to tune extremely fine points that improve the sound performance of equipment, either because they are intrinsically able of better performance or easier to integrate in the systems.
What was your impression of the EMT927/SME3012R?
A few people tell me this is the holy grail.
There is one thing for sure, the quality of recordings is not more advanced than the past. To my ears most of the best recordings were made from the 50s through the 70s. I am not saying that there are no good recordings today, but the past sets the standard.
Fransisco will have an opinion. You should also ask Tang and ddk. I suspect they will differ.
I could be wrong but I seriously doubt that Vladimir Lamm's models and tests will ever be published. You see and hear the evidence of his work when you listen to what he created -- that is not rumor. His designs are proprietary knowledge. Just as you likely never will see models and tests for Wilson crossovers. That is proprietary knowledge. I've talked with many manufacturers and to a one they closely guard their trade secrets. And below the surface this guarding of trade secrets is highly competitive -- a fear of poaching is justifiable.
Okay. Although, better understanding of the mechanisms of stereo sound reproduction does not imply better sound. The appeal to technology is strong in the current industry and many audiophiles are impressed by new or clever technology. Regardless of technology we are limited or blessed in having the bodies that we have. Certain manufacturers understand there are rules for human hearing - as humans we hear in a certain way.
Stereo, as a generic broad enterprise has changed a lot over time, I agree. Some new products emerge and fade, some have their day in the sun and then fade, some linger on, some are replaced by newer or upgraded models. Products that get closer to reality, those that offer believable sound, those more closely coincident with how we hear can and do endure. Companies built on singular genius - there are lots of them - can fade when their founder passes on unless their knowledge is passed to a capable successor. Many current accounts and audio sound descriptions of products, what are presented as values in the audio press, are further removed from reality and closer to emphasizing entertaining stereo artifacts only found in listening rooms.
"It's either fidelity or infidelity."
-- Paul Klipsch
A few isolated voices? Just how many people do you think have had a chance to make a serious comparison. If those few voices are experienced and knowledgeable, their opinion has value.
I met Romy with ddk. Great old friends both with strong opinions. Respectfully, I suspect you do not know the story about Lamm and Romy
Yes. Consider exposure, cost, and availability. My statement is based on my own listening and talking to Tang and reading reports from every visitor to Ddk in Utah.
My comment was a reflection about my journey, not yours or anyone else’s. I should have read less and listened more. No big deal. I learned along the way.
i've been really enjoying my late 70's ATR-102's and late 60's MR 70 tape preamps. certainly the best source i have yet heard with my better tapes. but it's not purely 50/60 year old technology. my friend AK has done much improvements to both, we have brand spanking new Flux Magnetic heads, and lots of new improved parts. better cables, with much improved grounding. and lots of work to mate these two products.
the bones are vintage, but not the detail execution.
so what do we have?
unless we do a head to head with a purely stock MR-70/Ampex 351 transport from 1967, it's hard to quantitate what is going on. and i've not heard a stock version of the original so i can't say.
or maybe we look at a darTZeel 108A stereo amp, from 2003, verses my current model 468 Monos. my guess it would hold it's own on the right speakers. in certain ways. the purity would be similar. so in this case the new and old are really talking the same language. the new 108, which looks the same as the 2003 version, being 4x the dollars. my second favorite amplifier, now a 20 year old product.
i also recall my Wilson 3/2, 5.1, and 6.0 Watt Puppy's and Mark Levinson electronics, and Linn CD-12 from the 90's. it was a fun way to learn the hobby, but things got much better as i found my own path. if we compared those products to current brick and mortar similar products i would expect that the new one's are better, but honestly i don't know. i'm not around them enough. maybe the old can keep up with the new?
the bones are vintage, but not the detail execution.
so what do we have?
unless we do a head to head with a purely stock MR-70/Ampex 351 transport from 1967, it's hard to quantitate what is going on. and i've not heard a stock version of the original so i can't say.
or maybe we look at a darTZeel 108A stereo amp, from 2003, verses my current model 468 Monos. my guess it would hold it's own on the right speakers. in certain ways. the purity would be similar. so in this case the new and old are really talking the same language. the new 108, which looks the same as the 2003 version, being 4x the dollars. my second favorite amplifier, now a 20 year old product.
i also recall my Wilson 3/2, 5.1, and 6.0 Watt Puppy's and Mark Levinson electronics, and Linn CD-12 from the 90's. it was a fun way to learn the hobby, but things got much better as i found my own path. if we compared those products to current brick and mortar similar products i would expect that the new one's are better, but honestly i don't know. i'm not around them enough. maybe the old can keep up with the new?
i did not use the term 'vintage' for those, or the dart....and agree they are not vintage. Lee's point was not necessarily about vintage, but 'past' products and that newer ones might be, and mostly are, better. and that generalizations about gear from 10-15-20 years ago might not still be valid.
you have to approach the newest versions with an open mind.
my opinion is that you cannot paint with a broad brush, too many variables. within narrow areas newer is generally better. which is why i mentioned a few different products all a little different.
i also think within most product lines there are particular past models that somehow were 'unicorns' of special performance characteristics, and maybe that magic might not have happened quite as effectively with later products. it's the way things go many times. the new products might be better in some ways, but not possess the magic synergy.
i realize the thread subject triggered the vintage focus, although that was not where Lee was coming from.
Last edited:
“Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be.”
I love that. My turntable turned (ha!) fifty this Monday, and my loudspeakers are filtered and phase corrected with dsp.
Audiophilia is a hobby which can be compared to having cars as a hobby. We listen to music (hopefully) and they drive (hopefully). The time span the contraptions have been made are equal, and the tech strides similar.
There is one piece of Hifi I regret selling: Sonus faber Concerto with their telescopic stands. True classics, excellently constructed and timeless optics. By other pieces of equipment mentioned in this thread way to cheap, but they are more expensive now than when they were in production about 30 years ago.
I love that. My turntable turned (ha!) fifty this Monday, and my loudspeakers are filtered and phase corrected with dsp.
Audiophilia is a hobby which can be compared to having cars as a hobby. We listen to music (hopefully) and they drive (hopefully). The time span the contraptions have been made are equal, and the tech strides similar.
There is one piece of Hifi I regret selling: Sonus faber Concerto with their telescopic stands. True classics, excellently constructed and timeless optics. By other pieces of equipment mentioned in this thread way to cheap, but they are more expensive now than when they were in production about 30 years ago.
Last edited:
I agree with you Kjetil, from my perspective, Audiophile is a hobby which can be compared to having cars as a hobby.
Back in the 60's I bought for my first car, a high milage Chevy Impala that smoked badly, for $100. The reason I bought it was it had a 327 cu. in. V8 with FI (fuel-injection) heads, same as what came in the Corvette. Back then, everything was user-serviceable. A friend and I removed the carb, intake manifold and heads in the street in front of my parents house. We took the heads to our local auto parts store and had them cleaned, and a valve job done on them. I replaced the heads and rebuilt the four barrel carb, and presto, my car went from smokey stinky yank tank to a sleeper that accelerated like stink. Could have done more, intake manifold, duel four barrels, headers, all available from the local car parts store. Today, cars are so technical that (except for simple oil and filter changes) the average owner wouldn't dream of getting under the hood with a wrench.
Back in the late-80's early-90's, I belonged to the Oregon Triode Society. Our members were building their own turntables, amplifiers and speakers. I read (and re-read) every printed edition of Sound Practices many times. My current LP playback rig is built up around the self-made or home-improved ethos of those days. While I am not skilled enough to design and build a great SET (so bought a good one new), I have designed (but built by others) my turntable (one of the problems with the much coveted Garrard 301 is the flexible chassis and rumble, so I traded mine in for one rebuilt onto a CNC-machined-from-solid-brass chassis and platter, had the plinth made of vibration deadening Panzerholz and extolling the virtues of tangential tracking tonearms, used a pivoted tangential tonearm from Reed so as to keep the appearance old school and clean). In addition, I am constantly tinkering with my Altec A7 speakers; adding wooden reinforcements and wool felt to the insides, exchanging larger exponential horns (twin rows of five) for the metal single horn (divided into three chambers), and swapping out the 902-8B ferrite compression drivers with new Alnico magnet 802-8G Series II compression drivers from Great Plains Audio, to make my hi fi sound real to me. I enjoy being able to apply what little I know about the subject to the purchase or construction of my ultimate system. My Garrard turntable and Altec A7 horn speakers are, superficially, "old school", but the modifications of such bring them to a world-class level. A melding of old school and new school to develop a hybrid that combines the best of both. Sure, I have spent a lot on my equipment but nowhere near the + of 6 figures amounts that others are spending to put together world-class systems today.
Similar threads
