O.k., perhaps not SOTA analog then. But analog of such a high quality (and price) that it is fair to benchmark digital performance against that.
Why do people that own vintage gear think It's better than new gear
- Thread starter taters
- Start date
O.k., perhaps not SOTA analog then. But analog of such a high quality (and price) that it is fair to benchmark digital performance against that.
Just some quick fun readin'/lookin'...
• http://gearpatrol.com/2015/05/14/vintage-hi-fi-sound-systems/
• http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/is-vintage-better-than-modern-for-audio-equipment
• http://gearpatrol.com/2015/05/14/vintage-hi-fi-sound-systems/
• http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/is-vintage-better-than-modern-for-audio-equipment
Still love the look and feel of those receivers Bob, they were gorgeous looking and some tubed ones still sound really good even today. I've been looking around for a decent full function tube receiver, no one seems to be making them anymore
.david
Interesting!
For the purposes of this discussion though I'd say digital started with the CD... and CDs can be quite good and I agree with most that it's improved but it's not better than the best vintage analog.
With the exception of digital I think it's hard to make a good case for modern high end audio surpassing what was possible 50+ years ago, despite the long list of advancements in materials, research by the Canadians and Harman, and computer simulations. Despite all this it's hard to argue the end result is actually better now and that's what counts.
Still love the look and feel of those receivers Bob, they were gorgeous looking and some tubed ones still sound really good even today. I've been looking around for a decent full function tube receiver, no one seems to be making them anymore
david
eBay. :b
• http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nobsound-MS...98489d891c6882bbcf9504&pid=100642&rk=1&rkt=1&
• http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fro...e+receivers.TRS0&_nkw=tube+receivers&_sacat=0
Micro, I was responding to Al's comment that he has heard SOTA analog. I don't believe that I have heard it for the simple reason that I have not heard very many great sounding analog front ends. I love my SME 30/12 but a member dumped it for a TechDAS AF2, so that has me wondering. I like the Kronos Pro, but I have not heard it with familiar cartridges.
In my post I mentioned the SAT tonearm, the AirTight Opus, ddk's vintage turntable collection and ML's DD NVS with Durand Telos arm and MC Anna cartridge as just a few examples that I have not yet heard that could be at or near SOTA. Without having heard any of these, and then trying to separate their performance from the system, I would not speculate about what SOTA actually is. I just don't have the experience.
I have heard and was very impressed with the Walker TT and Steve Dobbin's Kodo The Beat. I have directly compared analog to digital in a few systems and each time, the analog was clearly superior, but I can't state that it was SOTA. I have heard the TechDAS AF1 but it was in an unfamiliar system and I could not isolate the performance of the turntable from the rest of the system. It was extremely quiet though and quite resolving.
It would be interesting to read what people do consider to be SOTA in turntables, tonearms, cartridges and phono stages.
You'll have no argument from me Dave
! What surprised me is that digital's been around since the beginning along with analog which reached its Golden Age in less than 20 years while digital after nearly 100 years is trying to figure out which format will get it closer to analog even after the corporations and false advertising nearly killed it! What's wrong with this picture?david
You'll have no argument from me Dave
david
But, David...
...you have to admit, YouTube's pretty cool.
But, David...
...you have to admit, YouTube's pretty cool.
Indeed, it is very cool!
david
"Pulse-code modulation was invented by British scientist Alec Reeves in 1937 and was used in telecommunications applications long before its first use in commercial broadcast and recording. Commercial digital recording was pioneered in Japan by NHK and Nippon Columbia, also known as Denon, in the 1960s. The first commercial digital recordings were released in 1971."
______
History
"Early electrical communications started to sample signals in order to interlace samples from multiple telegraphy sources and to convey them over a single telegraph cable. The American inventor Moses G. Farmer conveyed telegraph time-division multiplexing (TDM) as early as 1853. Electrical engineer W. M. Miner, in 1903, used an electro-mechanical commutator for time-division multiplexing multiple telegraph signals; he also applied this technology to telephony. He obtained intelligible speech from channels sampled at a rate above 3500–4300 Hz; lower rates proved unsatisfactory. This was TDM, but pulse-amplitude modulation (PAM) rather than PCM.
In 1920 the Bartlane cable picture transmission system, named after its inventors Harry G. Bartholomew and Maynard D. McFarlane, used telegraph signaling of characters punched in paper tape to send samples of images quantized to 5 levels; whether this is considered PCM or not depends on how one interprets "pulse code", but it involved transmission of quantized samples.
In 1926, Paul M. Rainey of Western Electric patented a facsimile machine which transmitted its signal using 5-bit PCM, encoded by an opto-mechanical analog-to-digital converter. The machine did not go into production.
British engineer Alec Reeves, unaware of previous work, conceived the use of PCM for voice communication in 1937 while working for International Telephone and Telegraph in France. He described the theory and advantages, but no practical application resulted. Reeves filed for a French patent in 1938, and his US patent was granted in 1943. By this time Reeves had started working at the Telecommunications Research Establishment (TRE).
The first transmission of speech by digital techniques, the SIGSALY encryption equipment, conveyed high-level Allied communications during World War II. In 1943 the Bell Labs researchers who designed the SIGSALY system became aware of the use of PCM binary coding as already proposed by Alec Reeves. In 1949 for the Canadian Navy's DATAR system, Ferranti Canada built a working PCM radio system that was able to transmit digitized radar data over long distances.
PCM in the late 1940s and early 1950s used a cathode-ray coding tube with a plate electrode having encoding perforations. As in an oscilloscope, the beam was swept horizontally at the sample rate while the vertical deflection was controlled by the input analog signal, causing the beam to pass through higher or lower portions of the perforated plate. The plate collected or passed the beam, producing current variations in binary code, one bit at a time. Rather than natural binary, the grid of Goodall's later tube was perforated to produce a glitch-free Gray code, and produced all bits simultaneously by using a fan beam instead of a scanning beam.
In the United States, the National Inventors Hall of Fame has honored Bernard M. Oliver and Claude Shannon as the inventors of PCM, as described in "Communication System Employing Pulse Code Modulation", U.S. Patent 2,801,281 filed in 1946 and 1952, granted in 1956. Another patent by the same title was filed by John R. Pierce in 1945, and issued in 1948: U.S. Patent 2,437,707. The three of them published "The Philosophy of PCM" in 1948."
______
______
History
"Early electrical communications started to sample signals in order to interlace samples from multiple telegraphy sources and to convey them over a single telegraph cable. The American inventor Moses G. Farmer conveyed telegraph time-division multiplexing (TDM) as early as 1853. Electrical engineer W. M. Miner, in 1903, used an electro-mechanical commutator for time-division multiplexing multiple telegraph signals; he also applied this technology to telephony. He obtained intelligible speech from channels sampled at a rate above 3500–4300 Hz; lower rates proved unsatisfactory. This was TDM, but pulse-amplitude modulation (PAM) rather than PCM.
In 1920 the Bartlane cable picture transmission system, named after its inventors Harry G. Bartholomew and Maynard D. McFarlane, used telegraph signaling of characters punched in paper tape to send samples of images quantized to 5 levels; whether this is considered PCM or not depends on how one interprets "pulse code", but it involved transmission of quantized samples.
In 1926, Paul M. Rainey of Western Electric patented a facsimile machine which transmitted its signal using 5-bit PCM, encoded by an opto-mechanical analog-to-digital converter. The machine did not go into production.
British engineer Alec Reeves, unaware of previous work, conceived the use of PCM for voice communication in 1937 while working for International Telephone and Telegraph in France. He described the theory and advantages, but no practical application resulted. Reeves filed for a French patent in 1938, and his US patent was granted in 1943. By this time Reeves had started working at the Telecommunications Research Establishment (TRE).
The first transmission of speech by digital techniques, the SIGSALY encryption equipment, conveyed high-level Allied communications during World War II. In 1943 the Bell Labs researchers who designed the SIGSALY system became aware of the use of PCM binary coding as already proposed by Alec Reeves. In 1949 for the Canadian Navy's DATAR system, Ferranti Canada built a working PCM radio system that was able to transmit digitized radar data over long distances.
PCM in the late 1940s and early 1950s used a cathode-ray coding tube with a plate electrode having encoding perforations. As in an oscilloscope, the beam was swept horizontally at the sample rate while the vertical deflection was controlled by the input analog signal, causing the beam to pass through higher or lower portions of the perforated plate. The plate collected or passed the beam, producing current variations in binary code, one bit at a time. Rather than natural binary, the grid of Goodall's later tube was perforated to produce a glitch-free Gray code, and produced all bits simultaneously by using a fan beam instead of a scanning beam.
In the United States, the National Inventors Hall of Fame has honored Bernard M. Oliver and Claude Shannon as the inventors of PCM, as described in "Communication System Employing Pulse Code Modulation", U.S. Patent 2,801,281 filed in 1946 and 1952, granted in 1956. Another patent by the same title was filed by John R. Pierce in 1945, and issued in 1948: U.S. Patent 2,437,707. The three of them published "The Philosophy of PCM" in 1948."
______
I have listened to the Continuum, TechDAS, Kronos, and regularly to my SME30 and Forsell. At the other side I listened to Metronome's and DCS top equipment along the years. On average analog sounded good and enjoyable, particularly with jazz, rock or chamber music. However some of the more realistic and enjoyable classic and chamber music I listened to was in the DCS system, that I must say also managed to sound miserable in other occasions. DCS digital equipment can play at extremes - supreme sounding or really nasty. IMHO it all depends on the system and particularly on the fine details.
If I would manage to live on a strict diet of the best recordings of the 60's and the 70's using analog as the main media is tempting. But as soon as I get a Gramophone or a Diapason music magazine at the airport kiosk I see that we are loosing a lot with this approach, particularly considering how good the best digital can be.
The best vintage analog recordings are still a lot better than the current top analog recordings - IMHO it is not due just to equipment, it is the knowledge and the work conditions of the people who made them.
Can you tell us what were these products that are more than 50 years old you think still surpass all the best we have today?
Last edited:
agree.....the Studer A-820 and Ampex ATR-102 easily surpass current production alternatives.
no doubt there are vintage tt's that some prefer to current tt's. preference is a separate thing than 'better'. however; vintage tone arms and cartridges are simply 'vintage'. there are no absolutes on this subject. even though some would beg to control that narrative....it's certainly not any universal truth. and on the subject of phono stages....well.....vintage is clearly found wanting compared to the best current production choices.
I do certainly respect huge commitments to vintage and appreciate those efforts too.
there are plenty ways to find wonderful at the top of the vinyl heap.
agree.....the Studer A-820 and Ampex ATR-102 easily surpass current production alternatives.
no doubt there are vintage tt's that some prefer to current tt's. however; vintage tone arms and cartridges are simply 'vintage'. there are no absolutes on this subject. even though some would beg to control that narrative....it's certainly not any universal truth. and on the subject of phono stages....well.....vintage is clearly found wanting compared to the best choices.
I do certainly respect huge commitments to vintage and appreciate those efforts too.
Mike,
I was addressing recordings - sorry it was not clear, I corrected it.
Hi, without having compared any of this gear - a guy named Thuchan on the Gon sold off his Continuum first for the Micro Seiki 8000, which he then replaced with EMT 927. He likes both more. His tonearm choices are SAEC (8000 series, I think). And he has, and still owns, I think phonos from Lamm and Zanden 1200 Mk3, probably a few others, and prefers the EMT phono (which is what JackD uses as well).
Oh my name came up.
I guess I will give my opinion again, same as many pages ago. The thing with vintage is that the stuff that are relevant today are so because they've simply stood the test of time. The rest of their timeline brethren are in either land fills or have been recycled. They are around today not just because they were good then, they are good now. What isn't much talked about is how consumer tastes have changed over time. I think of it in the same vein as watching actors from the black and white days versus the actors today. The actors then talked with a different cadence, different diction. Well, if goals and popular aesthetic remain as divergent today as yesteryear's, why should we be surprised we have a discussion now 18 pages deep? Some people love the prior art and some the newer. That's all there is to it IMO.
As for the EMT, these are new units by Jules. They aren't vintage. Only the brand is. I use it because it is a solid performer with what just might be the richest feature set. The flexibility of the unit allows me to use any cart that's not a strain gauge or an optical. This makes it a great thing for someone like me that does have and enjoy those precious little wonders. That is not to say that I could not find a phono stage that would mate very satisfyingly with just one cart. I could very well live with an Atlas or a GF-S with a Lamm LP2 or LP2.1, I say so because I did. What I do not have is the rack space for multiple cart and P-S combos much less multiple tables.
I guess I will give my opinion again, same as many pages ago. The thing with vintage is that the stuff that are relevant today are so because they've simply stood the test of time. The rest of their timeline brethren are in either land fills or have been recycled. They are around today not just because they were good then, they are good now. What isn't much talked about is how consumer tastes have changed over time. I think of it in the same vein as watching actors from the black and white days versus the actors today. The actors then talked with a different cadence, different diction. Well, if goals and popular aesthetic remain as divergent today as yesteryear's, why should we be surprised we have a discussion now 18 pages deep? Some people love the prior art and some the newer. That's all there is to it IMO.
As for the EMT, these are new units by Jules. They aren't vintage. Only the brand is. I use it because it is a solid performer with what just might be the richest feature set. The flexibility of the unit allows me to use any cart that's not a strain gauge or an optical. This makes it a great thing for someone like me that does have and enjoy those precious little wonders. That is not to say that I could not find a phono stage that would mate very satisfyingly with just one cart. I could very well live with an Atlas or a GF-S with a Lamm LP2 or LP2.1, I say so because I did. What I do not have is the rack space for multiple cart and P-S combos much less multiple tables.
Agreed. Like I too said, there is survivorship bias with vintage - what has been filtered out.
My point is it's not as simple as saying new products are better than old products, just because technology has progressed with times like in computers. Too simplistic and specious.
It is curious that your are referring to Thuchan. I have followed his great system in Audiogon, it was a big loss when he decided to erase it after the Audiogon changes. He is a very friendly person, we exchanged several mails some years ago and I still follow his blog - BTW he is a member of WBF. His preferred turntable is the EMT R-80, a pre-version of the EMT 927. He still writes in Audiogon, we had a great thread on the EMT927. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/why-will-no-other-turntable-beat-the-emt-927.
And his views on the best of digital are also very interesting.
Similar threads
