View Full Version : Progression?
I was wondering how far we have really advanced in terms of equipment design, for example how much difference is there between a cost no object Turntable for the 70s or 80s to now, Have we truly progressed or is mostly just better packaging.
I can see over the last 5 years computer audio has taken off, so this is one area, but is a top rate Transport and DAC of yesterday better than a top rate computer based audio system. I do know in terms of performance and value a good DAC with some form of hard drive and server is capable of sounding pretty good to my ears.
I think one of the biggest changes is our understanding of how to get the best of Vintage equipment. By upgrading crossovers its possible to get Monitor Golds competing with some of the very best speakers in the world. In the past Open Baffles had issues with the bass but now people understand how to overcome these issues and also have a very high performance to cost ratio.. Turntables like the 1210 and GL75 can be modified to perform at very high levels of performance.
So have we truly developed over the last 30 years?
Haselsh1
07-09-2010, 08:33
'They' always say that history is destined to repeat itself. I guess we just call it 'retro' and accept that ultimately, it's better than all of the new fangled latest wizardry. For me personally, analogue will always be better than digital and complexity will always be better than convenience. I do not do things just because they are convenient, I do it because it is better. Better to my ears and better to my pocket. I do not follow things just because they are digital and therefore 'clearly' superior. I honestly believe we have gone nowhere in terms of advancement and may even have taken a huge step backwards all in the quest for convenience. What ever happened to a challenge in the quest for quality...?
I think digital "perfect sound" did analogue a favour. It at least provided a benchmark for a sound that is relatively uncoloured (or at least flat 20Hz - 20Khz). In the 70's there were many examples of lovely (or otherwise) turntable sourced sounds but they were hopelessly distant from "the truth".
I don't believe modern technology delivers any better sound than was possible in the past but it's taken us many years to weed out wheat from the chaff.
Ali Tait
07-09-2010, 09:22
Yes indeed.I've read that it was the development of cd that forced the turntable manufacturers to greater heights of fidelity to stay competitive.
As for loudspeakers,I think we've gone backwards if anything.
chris@panteg
07-09-2010, 09:26
I think for me , i have a kind of stubborn determination to keep playing and using vinyl ! whether its better or not is not really the point .
You see there are many now who have gone over to Streaming only systems , no cd or vinyl and i just refuse to go that route ! better or not , i will keep buying cd and lp as long as i can.
So maybe its head in the sand ! but with my passion for vinyl , its not just the sound but the mechanics and how they work , not forgetting the music of course .
I recently bought a new A series Walkman , seduced by the marketing blurb of "pure sound" from the internal all digital amp. Lets try out a modern binary sound i thought plus you can record iplayer.
The truth is it very noticeably distorts. Im going back to my wow and flutter thanks very much.
Ali Tait
07-09-2010, 09:40
I've heard some very good digital,but I've to hear the best vinyl I've heard bettered.
My streaming set up is really quite good, even though it's "only" 7520 based. Certainly it's good enough to really enjoy. My vinyl rigs sound better but the clincher is that I grew up with turntables, I'm attached to them emotionally and I enjoy using them.
This is a lifestyle / preference thing mainly but as per the original question floated by John, there really isn't much new that sounds any better than was possible in the past. Some of the new gear may be as good but using more modern technology, or more likely cheaper technology.
quadsugdenman
07-09-2010, 09:54
I agree with Clive in that digital has set a benchmark that is neither better nor worse than previous annalogue systems in that it has allowed us to become more discerning when making judgements. However the convenience factors with digital add to the positive aspects of the format for many millions of people.
Nonetheless until I hear a conclusive advantage in using streamed music over vinyl or even good cd sources, I will keep putting vinyl onto a turntable or putting the silver discs into a cdt.
I might be kidding myself but i think my modern sounding rotel 1062 amp with its slit foil caps and custom made toroidal blah blah blah gels really well with my valve Icon pre , which looks East German circa 1962.
I like to think its just good designers working with whats to hand ,modern or vintage ,and making it work for the ears and not the head.
Sorry if im spouting rubbish. Ive had two expressos this morning.
quadsugdenman
07-09-2010, 11:30
Sorry if im spouting rubbish. Ive had two expressos this morning.
Steady lad!!!! :)
Haselsh1
07-09-2010, 11:51
Put very simply, I've not yet heard a CD player; any CD player, that sounds better than a top notch turntable setup. Now if digital is supposed to be the answer I'd love to know the question.
Ali Tait
07-09-2010, 11:59
Agreed,but digital is still in it's infancy.Give it a few years and I reckon it will be giving the black stuff a run for it's money.
Rare Bird
07-09-2010, 12:05
Agreed,but digital is still in it's infancy.Give it a few years and I reckon it will be giving the black stuff a run for it's money.
Ali they want to stop farting about with CD players & concentrate on the CD quality & how the music is Remastered..
Haselsh1
07-09-2010, 12:07
Agreed,but digital is still in it's infancy.Give it a few years and I reckon it will be giving the black stuff a run for it's money.
Point taken...!
Agreed,but digital is still in it's infancy.Give it a few years and I reckon it will be giving the black stuff a run for it's money.
It could do it now....technically it's easy. The commercial will and reality is to cater for the masses so we have most software at best to Redbook standard and often worse (lossy).
Ali Tait
07-09-2010, 12:18
Ali they want to stop farting about with CD players & concentrate on the CD quality & how the music is Remastered..
Can't argue with that! Most new recordings are dire,too much compression,though I guess this affects new vinyl as much as cd. I have noted things seem a lot better generally with stuff from the U.S. in regards to sound quality and lack of compression,at least with the folk,bluegrass and blues stuff I've over the last few years.
I think doing the digital v analogue thing again is kind of missing John's original question... ;)
Taking vinyl first - yes, I think the equipment has progressed, but not by a huge margin. I suspect it is our understanding that has progressed more - the fact that Garrards, Thorens etc. are now revered much more than in the past is generally down to the implementation - understanding the interaction between all the component parts and how the turntable is plinthed, sited, cables etc. Coudl be wrong, just my guess, but otherwise why would these old turntables still be held in such high esteem?
Digital is an entirely different story, IMHO - and especially regards the dac - either a standalone unit or built-in to today's CD players. I think my Marantz as a transport into Caiman DAC sounds so "un-digital" compared to the early generation CD players and dacs it's untrue, though again, my knowledge is limited, and there will be better placed people able to confirm or deny my hunch. There will always be exceptions to any rule, but I'd say that mostly CD/digital has come on in leaps and bounds in the last 5-10 years, whereas vinyl reached it's zenith years ago and only marginal increases can be had by new technology/materials which is not the case with the complicated circuitry used in modern dacs.
Radio - a big fat zero - one area I would never argue an improvement has come in is with DAB... Digital radio in itself should be able to compete with FM, but not via DAB...
Speakers, then. Yes, I'd say overall there have been big improvements. If you compare a vintage Tannoy Gold with a modern Wharfedale Diamond then of course not, but taking speakers at their respective price points, especially low-mid budget, today's designs trounce most of their counterparts from preceding generations...
Finally, amps. I suspect most amplifiers are still based on decades old circuits, and where any improvements will have come is in the better quality of components due to better understanding and design, as well as tighter manufacturing tolerances.
That's my very amateur take on it, anyhow.
Haselsh1
07-09-2010, 13:44
Hmmm... getting on the digital bandwagon for once I have to say that my HDCD compatible Original 2008F sounded incredibly digital until I bought a Caiman and plugged the two together. The Original was hard and edgy and very grainy in the upper mid/treble. The Caiman is glorious all round but still can't image like my Techie can. I use a bog standard SL1210 with an Ortofon OM30 into a Croft pre/power and the imaging is wonderful.
Rare Bird
07-09-2010, 14:03
But your putting up with noise from the record which alone would drive me nuts or don't people listern intensly? Most the recording on vinyl that i listern to sound terrible, i can't alter that. CD for me kills all these problems
Alex: Regarding your comment about speakers, i disagree.
Haselsh1
07-09-2010, 14:17
But your putting up with noise from the record which alone would drive me nuts or don't people listern intensly? Most the recording on vinyl that i listern to sound terrible, i can't alter that. CD for me kills all these problems
Alex: Regarding your comment about speakers, i disagree.
Andre, I fully understand where you are coming from but as I have got older I have learnt to make allowances for the fact that this is older technology. I listen to every single thread and nuance in the music but the surface noise is minimal and I allow for it. I still work in a darkroom producing photographs that would obliterate a digital print and it is very hard work and really tiring to do with the old technology but I make allowances because the end result is just so clearly superior.
I really am a purist. There is no getting away from that. I do things because I have a driving passion for them. I adore music with the same passion that drives me to appreciate a fine photographic print. I am not interested in a digital facsimile of the real thing.
Some interesting thoughts
I tend to think in terms of DACs what we get in terms of cost to performance levels is really good I still wonder if a top DAC from the 80s would still be equal or even better (sorry never heard a top DAC from this period so no idea)
I tend to imagine that a Denon 100M would still be hard to beat at any costs
For me what has changed is our knowledge of how to get the best out of the equpment we use.
As far as Tuners go on the whole we gone backwards and sometimes I worry about the way many Loudspekers are voiced
I'm perhaps not the right sort of person to post in this thread (and even here these days???), but I ought to say this from my experiences and current perspective...
In terms of recording technology, DIGITAL has been a godsend to the purist recording engineer. Good digital over the decades has provided us with no mod-noise from analogue recording tape, no dropouts if the mediums are looked after and a purity of reproduced sound compared to the original as monitored in the studio which no analogue recording came close to until Dolby SR and the late generations of recorders. In the olden days, the engineers had to work round the compromises and because they cared, the results could be stupendous. The problem is that digital opens the door to all sorts of sonic "manipulation" and this is best heard via the singles chart full of manufactured pap (!). The same can't be said of the best classical recordings however.
Haselesh is welcome to differ with me on this, but comparing vinyl and CD (yawn) is purely a matter of personal taste, as when it comes to comparing both with the master recording, vinyl trails way behind. The best cuts often had all sorts of eq and careful limiting done to make the sound "impressive" but on a modern wide-range system, it shows most often IMO.... In fact, I remember max Townshend comparing a carefully set up Rock with a budget CD player and the two sounded much the same on a decent recording. The 1980's Rock 2 was regarded as a good turntable at the time.
As for vintage vs modern domestic playback gear, I think the biggest changes have been in the setup of the equipment. New plinths and supports have improved old classic turntables no end. Cables and wires are better these days too and thank heavens a little bit of decent provable science is coming back outside of the loopy "Audiophool" arena, which is a standing joke amongst "everyone else" in the recording industry.
By the way, for small to mid sized speakers, ACTIVE really is the way forward, removing at a stroke the mix-n-match domestic amateur disasters so beloved of many audio enthusiasts at all levels of expenditure IMO and experiences.
Apologies all, I tend to be a hybrid where reproduced sound is concerned. I have a museum antique system not of the top tier, but have heard enough decent pro grade sources and owned good monitors, as well as heard plenty of live acoustic music to realise that most "nice sounding" valve-n-vinyl systems are way, way short of reality. Vinyl certainly has a sense of "body" to the sound and many records were balanced to exploit this, and CD hasn't always been well served either, but I have enough good CD's to realise just how much better this format can be.
Anyway, the next generation won't know what to do with either an LP spinner or a CD, as everything will be downloaded or licensed a la Spotify I think. We're just a bunch of ageing men living in the past and looking back with a false sense of nostalgia I reckon...
The Caiman is glorious all round but still can't image like my Techie can.
Neither did mine compared to my Garrard 401 until yesterday. Four words for you Shaun - Caiman passive output mod (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6910) (unless you've already done it?) If you only need the line out and not the headphone socket then do it per AndrewR's post #117 (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showpost.php?p=135736&postcount=117) - best couple of quid you will EVER spend on your hifi - the improvements are not to be underestimated! (Rubycon caps from Tirna here (http://eshop.tirnaelectronics.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=46&products_id=183))
Alex: Regarding your comment about speakers, i disagree.
Indeed, (that's allowed! ;)) - your experience is probably much greater than mine, it is entirely possible I made some bad choices early on and got lucky later on, or that all my systems were crap in the past and it is only now that by luck it is coming together, but I would never want to go back to my Wharfedale Lintons or Goodmans (whatever they were) cheapies.
A certain active speaker with built in DAC has apparently had a retro-fittable update not too far removed (in concept, if not similar to) from the direct-mod on the Caiman and similar improvements have been noted. The crossover frequency may have been altered too, but not being an owner I'm not sure..
Indeed, (that's allowed! ;)) - your experience is probably much greater than mine, it is entirely possible I made some bad choices early on and got lucky later on, or that all my systems were crap in the past and it is only now that by luck it is coming together, but I would never want to go back to my Wharfedale Lintons or Goodmans (whatever they were) cheapies.
Alex, you need to look at Quad 57's, Spendor BC1's, KEF 104ab's and the shelf mounted Corelli version, Tangent TM1, TM3 or RS2 or RS4, let alone the bigger MA's, Celefs, Celestion Ditton 66's and IMF's from the 70's. These are still good speakers if set up right and the bass quality of these comes into it's own on a decent digital source.
Stratmangler
07-09-2010, 14:56
Can't comment on the Rubycon caps yet (thanks again Alex - looking forward to getting them), but I've been getting excellent results with Nichicon caps - I've got some rather nice Silmics in mine at the mo'
This diagram makes things clearer http://theartofsound.net/forum/showpost.php?p=139188&postcount=381
You really need to try the passive mod Shaun - it's also completely and easily reversible, so if youd don't like it ........
Haselsh1
07-09-2010, 15:02
Unfortunately my knowledge of messing with the internals of Hi-Fi is non existant. I buy, I listen, I do not mess with things I know nothing about. Many thanks for the advice though.
Hi Dave,
I have a museum antique system not of the top tier, but have heard enough decent pro grade sources and owned good monitors, as well as heard plenty of live acoustic music to realise that most "nice sounding" valve-n-vinyl systems are way, way short of reality.
I completely agree... That's why one should own a valve-n-vinyl system which only sounds "nice" when the recording does, and 'nasty' when it doesn't!
I think I've heard a system just like that a few times....oh yes, it's mine! :eyebrows:
;)
Marco.
Can't comment on the Rubycon caps yet (thanks again Alex - looking forward to getting them)
Posted 1st class this morning so hopefully be with you tomorrow :)
Unfortunately my knowledge of messing with the internals of Hi-Fi is non existant. I buy, I listen, I do not mess with things I know nothing about. Many thanks for the advice though.
Neither did I, until yesterday! Remove the case cover (4 screws) no soldering needed - simply remove a board, (needed to scrape off a little glue, but that was it) trim and bend the legs on two caps and install - don't even need to worry about polarity with the Rubycons. 5 minute job, and I'm a ham-fisted buffoon (my nick-name is Mr Clunky...) My hifi modding virginity gone, and a MUCH better sounding Caiman. Go on... you know you want to really... ;)
Neither did mine compared to my Garrard 401 until yesterday. Four words for you Shaun - Caiman passive output mod (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6910) (unless you've already done it?) If you only need the line out and not the headphone socket then do it per AndrewR's post #117 (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showpost.php?p=135736&postcount=117) - best couple of quid you will EVER spend on your hifi - the improvements are not to be underestimated! (Rubycon caps from Tirna here (http://eshop.tirnaelectronics.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=46&products_id=183))
Whats great about the DAC upgrades are the cost to performance ratio, but if you ever decide to max out the 401 their is a lot more to come, but not cheap
Unfortunately my knowledge of messing with the internals of Hi-Fi is non existant. I buy, I listen, I do not mess with things I know nothing about. Many thanks for the advice though.
Shaun it be wrth asking one of the moders if they do it for you as it seems this upgrade is really worth it I found people to be really helpful
Whats great about the DAC upgrades are the cost to performance ratio, but if you ever decide to max out the 401 their is a lot more to come, but not cheap
It will happen, one day! (I know, been saying that for over a year, but at least I've made some progress.) I think in a nutshell, that's one of the biggest differences - you get much more "bang for your buck" with digital - because vinyl is still largely a mechanical format, engineering is always going to be more costly than chips (generalising, I know, but true, IMO.)
I'm perhaps not the right sort of person to post in this thread (and even here these days???), but I ought to say this from my experiences and current perspective...
Of course you are
As for vintage vs modern domestic playback gear, I think the biggest changes have been in the setup of the equipment. New plinths and supports have improved old classic turntables no end.
Totally agree I would also add power supplies too! Cables and wires are better these days too and thank heavens a little bit of decent provable science is coming back outside of the loopy "Audiophool" arena, which is a standing joke amongst "everyone else" in the recording industry.
Anyway, the next generation won't know what to do with either an LP spinner or a CD, as everything will be downloaded or licensed a la Spotify I think. We're just a bunch of ageing men living in the past and looking back with a false sense of nostalgia I reckon...
I say just enjoy the music and who cares how we seen
I also think one of the other big changes is the use of clean power such as Filters, Reginarted mains, Balanced mains and good Earthing. James Heriot was telling me most studios now use balanced mains whilst I acknowledge that in some systems it seems to make little difference I reckon for most of us it has made a big impact to the quality of the sound
I don't own anything that could use a balanced mains properly - I think... We are blessed with good mains here though and I use high current filters on my sources anyway (except the tuner and that is totally dependant on the quality of the radio stations)
Ali Tait
07-09-2010, 17:39
Shaun it be wrth asking one of the moders if they do it for you as it seems this upgrade is really worth it I found people to be really helpful
Sure,no problem,if you want to send me the dac and caps I'll do the mod for you Shaun.
Reid Malenfant
07-09-2010, 17:49
<snip> Celestion Ditton 66's and IMF's from the 70's. These are still good speakers if set up right and the bass quality of these comes into it's own on a decent digital source.
I'll agree there as i have a pair of Ditton 66s' myself ;) The bass they can put out as well as the depth they can reproduce has to be heard to be believed :)
However they could be vastly better as frankly the enclosures are to put it mildly crap compared to a more modern design with thicker wood & decent bracing.
Honestly they sound so damn hollow when rapping on the enclosure it's almost sinful :eyebrows:
That hollow rapping sound doesn't stop current Tannoy Prestige models sounding great :scratch:
Thinner chipboard boxes won't store energy as heavy MDF will, for example. The ABR's should also keep internal pressure in check too. if you're worried about the boxes, some car sound deadening pads may assist a bit perhaps...
Reid Malenfant
07-09-2010, 20:40
Thinner chipboard boxes won't store energy as heavy MDF will, for example. The ABR's should also keep internal pressure in check too. if you're worried about the boxes, some car sound deadening pads may assist a bit perhaps...
Agreed, they'll just shift the frequencies that get muddied by the enclosure.
If you look at the way bass reflex & ABR enclosures work they actually create much more pressure inside the enclosure at or within an octave or so of the tuning frequency, this is how they manage to actually damp the driver & make the driver move less because the port/ABR is resonating with the enclosure volume & driver. There will be more internal pressure, not less.
Bass can therefore be improved a good deal by stiffening the thing, with bracing it could be taken to well over 500Hz, which i believe might be the xover frequency to the midrange & thus avoid as much cabinet colouration as possible given that the mid is a 2" dome.
Pete The Cat
08-09-2010, 19:36
To the original point, I think the pace of improvement in performance has slowed every decade since the '70s, certainly at the price bands in my range. Hi-fi was always a case of diminishing returns on investment, now it's diminishing returns over time as well. For what you could buy at around £5,000 in 1995-2000 I haven't heard anything recently manufactured at today's equivalent amount that's better. Different, yes. However my late nineties kit is much better than my late eighties second system.
I confess my tinnitus does seem to have evolved more over that period ! :(
Pete
I actually think you could build a very decent system for £5000 but not from the Usual Suspects
My answer to the original question is, yes we have. The advent of CAD-CAM took the design and manufacture to great heights. A lot of things that would be thought impossible to do thirty years ago is not an issue now.
In terms of audio the circuit design techniques greatly advanced producing much better and higher performance. Thanks to the topologies that were/are used in IC design. What used to be a standard single transistor input stage now does mundane jobs like driving (psuedo) vu meters. Class D being noisy and switch mode power supplies being not suitable for audio are the notions of the past.
I was once savagely attacked by an analogue worshipping sound engineer for my suggestion that the digital audio was about to be as good as analogue. He ranted on saying that how wonderful that particular brand of analogue audio equipment was and its quality could nevere be replaced etc, etc. I let him wank. He does not know the fact that I know very well that the designer of that particular sound equipment (a legendary designer and I am not dropping name) has been fighting against the notion that his old designs sounded better.
Almost all of the recordings today are recorded digitally. Print them on vinyl. Will they sound better?
Hi Cemal,
How's it going? I hope all is well up there in sunny Glasgow! :)
My answer to the original question is, yes we have. The advent of CAD-CAM took the design and manufacture to great heights. A lot of things that would be thought impossible to do thirty years ago is not an issue now.
In terms of audio the circuit design techniques greatly advanced producing much better and higher performance.
For me, in terms of audio circuit design techniques, nothing can touch the good old-fashioned point-to-point wiring used in any high quality valve equipment for achieving the best possible audio performance, and that particular circuit design technique has been around for about a century! ;)
In contrast I find that PCBs, for example, impose a distinct sonic signature on proceedings you don't get with hard-wiring, point-to-point (when possible). It's one of the advantages of using valves.
Yes, modern techniques have refined some aspects of circuit design, but there's a lot still to be said for some tried and tested ones, too.
Keeping signal paths as short as possible is fundamental in achieving true high fidelity with any design, and that IMO is best served by simple point-to-point wiring. This is one of the reasons, amongst many, why I would never return to using solid-state amplifiers, where the use of PCBs is mandatory.
As an aside, I've yet to hear a valve amp that uses PCBs in its design sound anywhere near as good as one which doesn't.
Marco.
Almost all of the recordings today are recorded digitally. Print them on vinyl. Will they sound better?
The answer to that is very probably yes, if we're talking about mainstream contemporary recordings, given all the compression that is so prevalent in todays digital market. Vinyl, being such an out dated medium, just can't handle that sort of treatment and as a result the music is so much better for it.
Hi Marco,
Going not too bad. I am sorry that I could not get in touch. While I was on holiday in Istanbul the guys took it a bit easy and we got behind with the jobs. So the last two weeks were totally panicky. Yes, amazingly the sun is shining today but you know how the weather goes in Glasgow.
I can understand your sentiment about the point to point wiring. In early days of electronics there was no alternative. But those circuits can be and generally are very noisy with today's standard. It also goes against your view of keeping the audio path as short as possible. Longer component leads mean not only longer signal path but also a lot of inductance which is exactly what you don't want in your circut.
Let me touch on the shorter signal path issue a bit more. More components in an amplifier does not neccessarily mean the signal path is longer. The signal path is always as short as it needs to be. The rest of the components are there to make the components that carry the signal do their job as linear and stable as possible. Also take the example of a single transistor input stage that I mentioned above. Old designs utilised it because it was the only option. Then differential input (two transistor) topology came about. The performance of the circuit increased. Now the input stage handled the signal better. Then the constant current and current mirroring techniques that the chip designers invented were applied in discrete form. This made the circuit even more linear and stable.
Now another point. The music you listen in your system actually travels miles of path during its production. I'll show you the schematics of an inner world of a typical mixing console when we hopefully get together. So that alone takes that argument away.
In terms of true fidelity. What is the criteria? If the criteria is your ear then it varies from one to another and all comes down to individual preference. But if it is the amount of distortion then I can tell you that an amplifier which was touted as "reference" and cost arm and a leg had a terrible thd level. It is a brand that probably some of you have in your rack. The fact is that our ears like distortion. That is just the way of our nature is. We dislike steril sound and probably an amplifier that produces it is the cleanest one in terms of thd. So let's be very careful about this term of true fidelity.
Now that brings us to another point which will also reply to REM.
I make music. I record mix and master it digitally. I print it on vinyl. How can it sound better in vinyl? I already finished the final sound on digital domain and it sounded the way I wanted it sound on my monitors.
Applying compression is totally irrelevant. It is used during the production of the music and at that stage whatever works is allowed to get to the sound you want, even if it is clipped to hell. During production anything that works is allowed. Otherwise how do you think all these big guitar sounds of the 70s were achieved?
Printing it on vinyl will make it sound different but not neccessarily better as I have already decided on the best sound after I produced it. That decision mechanism belongs to me as the artist. But you, as the listener have the right to comment on it and that varies from one to another.
Hi Cemal,
Good to hear that you're keeping well. We'll definitely hook up sometime... I'm due in Glasgow probably mid October :)
I'll tackle your reply in more detail later (loaded with the flu just now and just about to pop off for a kip), but just to address this bit:
I can understand your sentiment about the point to point wiring. In early days of electronics there was no alternative. But those circuits can be and generally are very noisy with today's standard.
I agree, but I'm not talking about old designs. My point was in reference to currently produced valve amps, which I know and use, such as those from Glenn Croft and Anthony Matthews of Tube Distinctions - there are others, too. These are all point-to-point wired, without a PCB in sight, by vastly experienced and very capable audio designers.
They deliberately choose to build their valve-based equipment that way because they consider it to be sonically superior, even though these days there are other options available.
From experience I can tell you that not only does their equipment sound utterly stunning and outperform many rival solid-state designs using the modern circuit techniques you mention, but they are also in no way noisy - far from it.
It's all about skill and implementation. I'd rather my equipment was made by a highly skilled and experienced artisan, doing point-to-point (audiophile grade) wiring and making astonishingly high quality (bespoke) designs in small quantities to dedicated enthusiasts, than some mass-produced equipment largely designed by computer and full of, in my experience, sonically degrading PCBs, no matter how supposedly 'wonderful' the new technology used is!
Progress (in terms of the thread topic)? Not for me in this area, in terms of my system. Introducing PCBs into the design of my valve equipment, no matter how well implemented by modern technology, would be a backwards step, sonically.
I guess with these things it's a case of different stokes for different folks.......
YMMV :)
Marco.
Ali Tait
12-09-2010, 11:55
Hi Marco,
Going not too bad. I am sorry that I could not get in touch. While I was on holiday in Istanbul the guys took it a bit easy and we got behind with the jobs. So the last two weeks were totally panicky. Yes, amazingly the sun is shining today but you know how the weather goes in Glasgow.
I can understand your sentiment about the point to point wiring. In early days of electronics there was no alternative. But those circuits can be and generally are very noisy with today's standard. It also goes against your view of keeping the audio path as short as possible. Longer component leads mean not only longer signal path but also a lot of inductance which is exactly what you don't want in your circut.
Let me touch on the shorter signal path issue a bit more. More components in an amplifier does not neccessarily mean the signal path is longer. The signal path is always as short as it needs to be. The rest of the components are there to make the components that carry the signal do their job as linear and stable as possible. Also take the example of a single transistor input stage that I mentioned above. Old designs utilised it because it was the only option. Then differential input (two transistor) topology came about. The performance of the circuit increased. Now the input stage handled the signal better. Then the constant current and current mirroring techniques that the chip designers invented were applied in discrete form. This made the circuit even more linear and stable.
Now another point. The music you listen in your system actually travels miles of path during its production. I'll show you the schematics of an inner world of a typical mixing console when we hopefully get together. So that alone takes that argument away.
In terms of true fidelity. What is the criteria? If the criteria is your ear then it varies from one to another and all comes down to individual preference. But if it is the amount of distortion then I can tell you that an amplifier which was touted as "reference" and cost arm and a leg had a terrible thd level. It is a brand that probably some of you have in your rack. The fact is that our ears like distortion. That is just the way of our nature is. We dislike steril sound and probably an amplifier that produces it is the cleanest one in terms of thd. So let's be very careful about this term of true fidelity.
Now that brings us to another point which will also reply to REM.
I make music. I record mix and master it digitally. I print it on vinyl. How can it sound better in vinyl? I already finished the final sound on digital domain and it sounded the way I wanted it sound on my monitors.
Applying compression is totally irrelevant. It is used during the production of the music and at that stage whatever works is allowed to get to the sound you want, even if it is clipped to hell. During production anything that works is allowed. Otherwise how do you think all these big guitar sounds of the 70s were achieved?
Printing it on vinyl will make it sound different but not neccessarily better as I have already decided on the best sound after I produced it. That decision mechanism belongs to me as the artist. But you, as the listener have the right to comment on it and that varies from one to another.
Hi Celmal,
Good points and I don't disagree,but I think a good point was raised about the overuse of compression in modern recordings in order to make them as loud as possible.It destroys the dynamic range and renders a lot of stuff unlistenable IMO.
I don't use vinyl,I use a SB Touch and it sounds great,particularly with good 24/96 files.I have noted though that all the best sounding music I have is 20 or more years old,the very best being a Duke Ellington 24/96 I just downloaded on Friday.It sounds stunningly good,and nothing modern I've heard,hi rez or otherwise,comes close.
Hi Ali,
I completely agree on that point, as it's also my experience with music, on vinyl and CD.
On another point, as a DIY-er, and fellow valve enthusiast, could you do me a favour and extol the virtues of point-to-point wiring in valve designs when done correctly for the benefit of Cemal?
You'll be able to explain the advantages over PCBs in valve equipment better than I can :)
Right, off for a kip now!
Marco.
Ali Tait
12-09-2010, 12:45
Well to be perfectly honest Marco,I don't think there is any difference,as long as the pcb is well designed,and indeed a pcb can allow the signal paths to be shorter than hard wiring.A hard wired amp does make it easier to swap components though.It can make builds cheaper too,as you don't need to pay to have pcb's designed and built.
It's often touted as an improvement over pcb's,but I think it's a marketing tool more than anything else.
Lol - no worries...! That's certainly not my experience, though.
I'm not sure how it can be a marketing tool, as to my knowledge, there aren't very many commercially produced point-to-point wired valve amps around - most use PCBs for convenience.....
You should speak to Glenn Croft about PCBs - a man more divorced from the desire of using 'marketing tools' you're scarcely likely to find! He doesn't make his designs more labour intensive by adopting point-to-point wiring for the sake of it, I can assure you ;)
Also, I don't remember seeing too many of Nick's designs with PCBs in them....
I'll ask Anthony to comment on this, as I know his views on the matter in respect to his valve equipment.
Cheers! :cool:
Marco.
Well to be perfectly honest Marco,I don't think there is any difference,as long as the pcb is well designed,and indeed a pcb can allow the signal paths to be shorter than hard wiring.A hard wired amp does make it easier to swap components though.It can make builds cheaper too,as you don't need to pay to have pcb's designed and built.
It's often touted as an improvement over pcb's,but I think it's a marketing tool more than anything else.
I'm going to disagree that populated PCB's are more expensive than point to point wiring. A PCB can be designed and prototyped these days in hours on a PC with all sorts of clever software, all you have to do is design the actual circuit and the software works out all the holes, copper tracking, component legends, in fact the whole shooting match. A bare PCB costs literally pence, components are fractions of a pence mostly and auto insertion machines can fit the components in less than a minute at full tilt, bend and trim legs of components, the a quick trip across the solder bath and job done.
The most expensive part of manufacture - labour - has been kept to a minimum. Point to point wiring cannot be done by any machine and needs human intervention every step of the way from start to finish. The one element that separates the two is heat; PCB's don't like it up 'em and they soon start to slow cook and carbonise until one day a fire extinguisher becomes it's best friend suddenly, while P2P wiring is ALMOST immune from the effects of heat.
Ali Tait
12-09-2010, 14:16
The PS in the direct coupled amps Nick is building for me will have pcb's.As for commercial products,economies of scale come into play,making it cheaper for items produced in larger quantities.
I agree hard wiring is better than using cheap,poorly designed pcb's,but IMO well designed good quality boards are just as good.
Rare Bird
12-09-2010, 14:17
Solder is a necesary evil, having PCB tracks coated in the stuff is a frightening thought to me.Hard wiring is best to avoid this solder covered track buisness.
PCB are the stuff of mass production. Hard wiring gives you much more room for boutique parts where as cheap components are tiny these days, fitting say large flashy capacitors on modern PCB would look silly if not out of place, thats if you can even get them on.Hardwiring is a sign of high quality although messy layouts & rats nests are nothing better that some amateur DIY job! so it has to be neat to be respected as a quality piece. You can't beat hard wiring..& use the best solder if you can, cheap constitutes thick dull sound.
Just my view as i know nothing
Ali Tait
12-09-2010, 14:18
I'm going to disagree that populated PCB's are more expensive than point to point wiring. A PCB can be designed and prototyped these days in hours on a PC with all sorts of clever software, all you have to do is design the actual circuit and the software works out all the holes, copper tracking, component legends, in fact the whole shooting match. A bare PCB costs literally pence, components are fractions of a pence mostly and auto insertion machines can fit the components in less than a minute at full tilt, bend and trim legs of components, the a quick trip across the solder bath and job done.
The most expensive part of manufacture - labour - has been kept to a minimum. Point to point wiring cannot be done by any machine and needs human intervention every step of the way from start to finish. The one element that separates the two is heat; PCB's don't like it up 'em and they soon start to slow cook and carbonise until one day a fire extinguisher becomes it's best friend suddenly, while P2P wiring is ALMOST immune from the effects of heat.
Quite.However,I'm talking about the DIY side of things though.
Solder is a necesary evil, having PCB tracks coated in the stuff is a frightening thought to me.Hard wiring is best to avoid this solder covered track buisness.
PCB are the stuff of mass production. Hard wiring gives you much more room for boutique parts where as cheap components are tiny these days, fitting say large flashy capacitors on modern PCB would look silly if not out of place, thats if you can even get them on.Hardwiring is a sign of high quality although messy layouts & rats nests are nothing better that some amateur DIY job! so it has to be neat to be respected as a qulity piece. You can't beat hard wiring..& use the best solder if you can, cheap constitutes thick dull sound.
Just my view as i know nothing
Oh, you know plenty, mate!
I couldn't agree more. I think some people should listen to the sonic effect caused in a valve circuit of introducing PCB tracks compared to hard-wiring that point in the circuit with the best solder and cable you've got, and then come back and tell us that they can't hear a difference ;)
I shudder to think how different (and not in a good way) my copper amp would sound if it were full of bloody PCBs!! :rolleyes:
Ali, are there any PCBs in Nick's 211? I must've missed them if there were.
Marco.
Reid Malenfant
12-09-2010, 14:35
I really think this hard wiring thing is much more to do with the potentially lethal voltages that are found inside valve amplifiers. On top of that you also have devices that run stinking hot with no effective way of cooling them ;)
The result of the above is charred areas of PCB or fairly decent thicknesses of wire that can conduct some of that heat away & that have much thicker insulation compared to solder resist.
I ask you, which would be safer? :eyebrows:
I don't think it's much to do with sound quality though much more exotic wiring can be used than a PCB track admittedly. It's down to longevity & safety imo.
Ali Tait
12-09-2010, 14:35
Not sure Marco,but as I said,pcb's are more trouble and expense for a DIY'er.Nick is using them in my amp for reasons of space.
Andre,agree with what you say,though I still maintain a good quality,well designed pcb will be just as good.
That's fair enough, Ali. All I can say is that in my experience I've yet to hear a truly outstanding sounding (by my standards) valve amp that uses PSBs.
I wonder why Glenn Croft insists on using point-to-point wiring in all his designs, even his £350 entry-level preamp (I don't believe there are any excessively high voltages in there, which kind of makes Mark's point somewhat moot), when he could save a whole load of time (and money) otherwise? :scratch:
I've asked Anthony for his views on the matter, so that should make interesting reading when he comments in due course :)
Marco.
Ali Tait
12-09-2010, 14:59
Yes indeed.Perhaps Nick may comment also.I do agree that a lot of cheaper pcb's may well degrade sound,but good quality ones would I think be just as good.High quality ones would not be cheap though.
Steve Eddy
12-09-2010, 15:06
Also take the example of a single transistor input stage that I mentioned above. Old designs utilised it because it was the only option. Then differential input (two transistor) topology came about.
Naah. Differential topologies had been around well before the introduction of the transistor and those same topologies work for transistors just as they do for tubes.
If an input stage used just one transistor it was for one reason; to save money.
se
Yes indeed.Perhaps Nick may comment also.I do agree that a lot of cheaper pcb's may well degrade sound,but good quality ones would I think be just as good.High quality ones would not be cheap though.
Yup, and how often do you think high quality ones of the requisite standard you're talking about are used inside in any way affordable commercially produced valve amps?
There's no way that sort of cost could be factored into the budget and for the retail price to remain affordable. Genuinely hi-end commercial designs (say at least over £5k) might be a different matter.
Therefore, what's generally used in mass-market valve equipment is anything but high quality PCBs, with the resulting inevitable sonic penalties. This is precisely why Glenn Croft does what he does!! ;)
Progress? No chance. It's yet another valid example of convenience over quality in today's equipment designs. I'll cite plenty more later!
Marco.
Steve Eddy
12-09-2010, 15:22
Solder is a necesary evil, having PCB tracks coated in the stuff is a frightening thought to me.Hard wiring is best to avoid this solder covered track buisness.
Not to worry. Most all circuit boards today use the SMOBC process, which stands for Solder Mask Over Bare Copper. They only tin or solder plate the pads that are used for soldering the components to the board.
The reason this isn't obvious is because most circuit boards use colored solder masks. If you ever get a chance to see a board made using a clear solder mask, you'll see that all the tracks are pristine, pink copper.
se
Ali Tait
12-09-2010, 15:33
Yup, and how often do you think high quality ones of the requisite standard you're talking about are used inside in any way affordable commercially produced valve amps?
There's no way that sort of cost could be factored into the budget and for the retail price to remain affordable. Genuinely hi-end commercial designs (say at least over £5k) might be a different matter.
Therefore, what's generally used in mass-market valve equipment is anything but high quality PCBs, with the resulting inevitable sonic penalties. This is precisely why Glenn Croft does what he does!! ;)
Progress? No chance. It's yet another valid example of convenience over quality in today's equipment designs. I'll cite plenty more later!
Marco.
Agreed,but as I said,I was talking from a DIY point of view.
I know that, mate, but remember most people don't inhabit the world of DIY, and thus enjoy its benefits - they have to live with commercial reality....
Marco.
Ali Tait
12-09-2010, 15:58
Hi Ali,
I completely agree on that point, as it's also my experience with music, on vinyl and CD.
On another point, as a DIY-er, and fellow valve enthusiast, could you do me a favour and extol the virtues of point-to-point wiring in valve designs when done correctly for the benefit of Cemal?
You'll be able to explain the advantages over PCBs in valve equipment better than I can :)
Right, off for a kip now!
Marco.
LOL,aye,but that's what you asked me to do!
Reid Malenfant
12-09-2010, 16:05
You'll be able to explain the advantages over PCBs in valve equipment better than I can :)
I really think this hard wiring thing is much more to do with the potentially lethal voltages that are found inside valve amplifiers. On top of that you also have devices that run stinking hot with no effective way of cooling them ;)
The result of the above is charred areas of PCB or fairly decent thicknesses of wire that can conduct some of that heat away & that have much thicker insulation compared to solder resist.
I ask you, which would be safer? :eyebrows:
I don't think it's much to do with sound quality though much more exotic wiring can be used than a PCB track admittedly. It's down to longevity & safety imo.
Perhaps someone missed this along the line :eyebrows: PCBs unless they are drilled to alow cooling will restrict air flow under the chassis. Wires will not restrict airflow to such an extent. Leaking electrolytic capacitors cause PCBs to become conductive, with the voltages present in valve amps this could easily cause a fire with the PCB going up in flames.
Take it from me i have seen what high voltages & leaking capacitors do & it's no laughing matter :stalks:
Do i need to add anything else or have i said enough?
Hi Mark,
Yes I saw that, and indeed referred to it in one of my posts... I agree, but aside from that, there are also clear sonic advantages with hard-wiring, as opposed to using (cheap) PCBs - I've heard them! :)
Marco.
Ali Tait
12-09-2010, 16:18
Perhaps someone missed this along the line :eyebrows: PCBs unless they are drilled to alow cooling will restrict air flow under the chassis. Wires will not restrict airflow to such an extent. Leaking electrolytic capacitors cause PCBs to become conductive, with the voltages present in valve amps this could easily cause a fire with the PCB going up in flames.
Take it from me i have seen what high voltages & leaking capacitors do & it's no laughing matter :stalks:
Do i need to add anything else or have i said enough?
That's why I said well designed pcb's!
Steve Eddy
12-09-2010, 16:25
Perhaps someone missed this along the line :eyebrows: PCBs unless they are drilled to alow cooling will restrict air flow under the chassis. Wires will not restrict airflow to such an extent. Leaking electrolytic capacitors cause PCBs to become conductive, with the voltages present in valve amps this could easily cause a fire with the PCB going up in flames.
Fair points. And of course tube circuits tend to better lend themselves to point wiring. They're often much simpler and use fewer and often larger parts. With an efficient layout, you could probably lash up a tube amp with some turret boards and tag strips about as fast as you could with a circuit board.
Now, a complex solid state amp? Forget about it. :lol:
se
Reid Malenfant
12-09-2010, 16:37
Yes, i fully agree with you Steve ;)
Most of the larger components already tend to have tags on them anyway, or at least it appears they can be purchased with tag mounts. Valve holders, transformers etc, which leaves few components such as capacitors & resistors etc that can simply be wired between the tags :)
It all makes sense :eyebrows: You'd end up with fewer connections than if using a PCB which can only be a good thing from a sound point of view.
It all makes sense You'd end up with fewer connections than if using a PCB which can only be a good thing from a sound point of view.
Yes indeedio! :)
So, in terms of progress being made (the theme of this thread), some modern design techniques leave much to be desired compared to good old fashioned point wiring.
Next I'll tackle the way most affordable equipment is voiced these days (artifically thin and forward sounding), from CDPs to speakers, compared to the *best* vintage designs ;)
Marco.
Naah. Differential topologies had been around well before the introduction of the transistor and those same topologies work for transistors just as they do for tubes.
If an input stage used just one transistor it was for one reason; to save money.
se
I know that very well. Cost savings has been around from day one naturally. But in the early days of hi-fi it was not the only factor. Acceptable thd levels were much higher and the bar was raised along the way.
Steve Eddy
12-09-2010, 17:01
Most of the larger components already tend to have tags on them anyway, or at least it appears they can be purchased with tag mounts. Valve holders, transformers etc, which leaves few components such as capacitors & resistors etc that can simply be wired between the tags :)
Exactly, though a component won't always span the entire distance required.
It all makes sense :eyebrows: You'd end up with fewer connections than if using a PCB which can only be a good thing from a sound point of view.
Yes. Though personally I rather like the old brown paper/phenolic boards. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find it here quite a long time. Can get the laminate material itself, but not copper clad.
Then I was talking to a friend of mine the other day and the subject came up and he said to just get the laminate and send it to the board house. It seems the board houses are now going over to the additive process for making boards, i.e. plating directly to the laminate rather than using copper clad and etching it off.
So that's got me rather excited, though I'm not sure yet whether their process will work with phenolic-based laminates. I'm hoping it will because I'm really wanting to try some boards made from linen/phenolic laminate.
se
Steve Eddy
12-09-2010, 17:13
I know that very well. Cost savings has been around from day one naturally. But in the early days of hi-fi it was not the only factor. Acceptable thd levels were much higher and the bar was raised along the way.
Yes.
But what prompted me to reply to your original post was because you didn't say anything about acceptable levels of THD. Instead you said it was because it was "the only option."
se
Ali Tait
12-09-2010, 17:43
Yes indeedio! :)
So, in terms of progress being made (the theme of this thread), some modern design techniques leave much to be desired compared to good old fashioned point wiring.
Next I'll tackle the way most affordable equipment is voiced these days (artifically thin and forward sounding), from CDPs to speakers, compared to the *best* vintage designs ;)
Marco.
I thought the same Marco.When Gary came over he brought his Cambridge amp though,it had quite a warm and laid back presentation which was actually quite pleasant.Much better than I was expecting.
Steve Eddy
12-09-2010, 18:41
Next I'll tackle the way most affordable equipment is voiced these days (artifically thin and forward sounding), from CDPs to speakers, compared to the *best* vintage designs ;)
As I was going to say before I got sidetracked replying to posts, I don't think we've progressed as much as the marketing departments would wish to lead us to believe.
Remember the "spec wars" back in the 70's? Where the mass market manufacturers were vying for the best specs? The more zeros to the right of the decimal place the better. It was a numbers game.
And we have much the same thing going on now, only taken to a different level.
Gotta use this wire because it's the highest purity, or has the fewest crystals. Gotta use that dielectric because it has the lowest dielectric constant. Etc., etc.
Most everything is ultimately geared toward improving some objective metric, with the implication that any objective improvement must be good, while neglecting the fact that we are subjective human beings, not pieces of cold, objective test gear.
It's caused a huge segment of the market to become unhealthily obsessed not only with purely objective metrics, but with the smallest of things. Forget about not seeing the forest for the trees. Or even the trees for the leaves. We're talking about missing even the leaves for the cells.
And that's literally the scale at which many are obsessing over.
I think in many cases we've lost track of the big picture.
Looking at it from a more philosophical point of view, we're being driven to seek pure yin, and eliminate all yang. But as the philosophy goes, without yang, yin ceases to exist.
I think we need to come back to a more healthy balance.
That's why I think some of the best vintage gear out there can ultimately be more satisfying than the most modern offerings.
They didn't worry about the cellular structure of the leaves. They got the basics right and they kept things relatively simple.
That approach has worked well for me. I try to get the basics right, keep things simple, and at that point, instead of trying to keep some number cruncher happy, I feed my soul.
And I guess that's what I don't care for in a lot of things out there. They lack soul. They come off to me as cold, cynical and contrived.
Anyway, them's my thoughts on the matter.
se
Awesome, Steve - I think that should be post of the year! I am in entire agreement :clap:
There are so many bits I could highlight, but with this you and I are so much on the same wavelength, it's untrue:
And I guess that's what I don't care for in a lot of things out there. They lack soul. They come off to me as cold, cynical and contrived...
Hear, hear! :)
I'll comment more later.
Marco.
Some great post guys really enjoying reading this. Lots of good debate and thoughts
I do believe most of us have fallen victim to the power of marketing (myself included)
Steve Eddy
12-09-2010, 19:27
Awesome, Steve - I think that should be post of the year! I am in entire agreement :clap:
Thank you for the kind words.
If I win, do I get a trophy? Should I prepare a speech? :lol:
There are so many bits I could highlight, but with this you and I are so much on the same wavelength, it's untrue:
It's twoo! It's twoo!
http://www.morethings.com/fan/blazing_saddles/madeline_kahn.jpg
http://www.q-audio.com/images/biggrin.gif
se
If I win, do I get a trophy? Should I prepare a speech? :lol:
Yesh, you get an extra-shpeshial prize specially 'administered' by me at the AoS Christmas party.... :eyebrows:
Marco.
Steve Eddy
12-09-2010, 19:36
Some great post guys really enjoying reading this. Lots of good debate and thoughts I do believe most of us have fallen victim to the power of marketing (myself included)
Yes. It pervades and invades every part of our lives these days.
And the big boys spend big bucks on research to figure out how better to get into our psyche to more effectively manipulate us.
We are to them little more than a bunch of Pavlov's dogs.
se
Steve Eddy
12-09-2010, 19:38
Yesh, you get an extra-shpeshial prize specially 'administered' by me at the AoS Christmas party.... :eyebrows:
Oooooo! I hope it involves a lot of latex and leather! ;)
se
anthonyTD
12-09-2010, 20:00
hi all,
well,,, my main reasons for prefrence to hard wireing valve amps are quite simple, i choose the wire, i choose the length of the tracks, i choose what crosses what, ie; i choose the layout! also valve amps run hot, especialy class A !!! And as has already been pointed out,,, printed circuit boards dont take kindly to repeated heating and cooling, eventualy they can start acting like thermistors, ie,conducting voltages from sources you dont want! using thick copper wire as i do absorbs heat out of components connected to them and disperses it to air, PCB designs tend to hold heat and therefore can subject components to constant heat reducing their life expectancy.
there are other reasons why i think hard wireing valve circuits is better such as vibration etc,,, but i think i have made my point. however,,,my prefrence for hard wiring does not mean that i am totaly against PCB designs, far from it, some of my best designs are printed circuits,ie; the soul power amps and soul-mate preamps etc. i just like to be in control of how my designs are laid out and what type of board materials are used, also the quality of board material and copper thickness is very important to me, and
thats why i now design all my own PCB's
anthony,TD...
anthonyTD
12-09-2010, 20:15
also,
as for us "liking distortion" that is only partly true, 2nd order or even harmonics yes, our ears actualy produce it, as for 3rd and higher orders ie, 5th 7th 9th etc, even small amounts are objectionable, that is why for eg we can tolerate badly designed single ended triode amplifiers producing sometimes in excess of 10%[low order] distortion and forgive them for it for the benefits they bring in musicality...
anthony,TD.
That's why I think some of the best vintage gear out there can ultimately be more satisfying than the most modern offerings.
They didn't worry about the cellular structure of the leaves. They got the basics right and they kept things relatively simple.
Well put Steve, the best sounds are of the old School designs, Williams, Radford etc
Hi Celmal,
Good points and I don't disagree,but I think a good point was raised about the overuse of compression in modern recordings in order to make them as loud as possible.It destroys the dynamic range and renders a lot of stuff unlistenable IMO.
I don't use vinyl,I use a SB Touch and it sounds great,particularly with good 24/96 files.I have noted though that all the best sounding music I have is 20 or more years old,the very best being a Duke Ellington 24/96 I just downloaded on Friday.It sounds stunningly good,and nothing modern I've heard,hi rez or otherwise,comes close.
Hi Ali,
I agree with you on today's music production in general. I am definitely not taking sides but just being objective from both the technical and artistic point of view.
The use of compressor to the degree of "squashed to hell" is a result of a trend but then again we do not follow it anyway. I'd love to rant on this subject but this is the wrong thread. Some other time.
@Steve,
Agreed. Seems I said it was the only option. My bad.
However, I still disgaree with the claim that we did not progress in design and manufacture. We did. Even the cheapest equipment today has got built in quality compared to its price, which was not possible to achieve say thirty years ago. I am not condoning mp3 here but to get the surround sound from a 29.99 mp3 device in 70s would be unthinkable. Or in 80s it would require a second mortgage to buy it.
I think we are missing the fact that we belong to a certain generation. I believe an 18 year old today gets exactly the same excitement from his/her mp3 that we got from our turntables when we were younger. That's the way it is. My nephew couldn't give a toss about vinyl. Even the CD is an obselete object for him and he is quite happy listening to his music from his PC.
We may be thinking that they are missing something. To a degree it is true, in the way that our fathers thought we were missing a lot of things.
anthonyTD
12-09-2010, 20:39
Hi Ali,
I agree with you on today's music production in general. I am definitely not taking sides but just being objective from both the technical and artistic point of view.
The use of compressor to the degree of "squashed to hell" is a result of a trend but then again we do not follow it anyway. I'd love to rant on this subject but this is the wrong thread. Some other time.
@Steve,
Agreed. Seems I said it was the only option. My bad.
However, I still disgaree with the claim that we did not progress in design and manufacture. We did. Even the cheapest equipment today has got built in quality compared to its price, which was not possible to achieve say thirty years ago. I am not condoning mp3 here but to get the surround sound from a 29.99 mp3 device in 70s would be unthinkable. Or in 80s it would require a second mortgage to buy it.
I think we are missing the fact that we belong to a certain generation. I believe an 18 year old today gets exactly the same excitement from his/her mp3 that we got from our turntables when we were younger. That's the way it is. My nephew couldn't give a toss about vinyl. Even the CD is an obselete object for him and he is quite happy listening to his music from his PC.
We may be thinking that they are missing something. To a degree it is true, in the way that our fathers thought we were missing a lot of things.
:)
Reid Malenfant
12-09-2010, 20:45
I think we are missing the fact that we belong to a certain generation. I believe an 18 year old today gets exactly the same excitement from his/her mp3 that we got from our turntables when we were younger. That's the way it is. My nephew couldn't give a toss about vinyl. Even the CD is an obselete object for him and he is quite happy listening to his music from his PC.
We may be thinking that they are missing something. To a degree it is true, in the way that our fathers thought we were missing a lot of things.
I was thinking this earlier & talking to a friend about the very same thing...
CDs will be a thing of the past soon as everyone will download MP3 files from itunes & quality will be reduced to the lowest common denominator :doh:
Buy CDs now while they are being given away @ car boot sales, they'll increase in value to people that appreciate better quality :eyebrows:
Ali Tait
12-09-2010, 20:47
Hi Ali,
I agree with you on today's music production in general. I am definitely not taking sides but just being objective from both the technical and artistic point of view.
The use of compressor to the degree of "squashed to hell" is a result of a trend but then again we do not follow it anyway. I'd love to rant on this subject but this is the wrong thread. Some other time.
@Steve,
Agreed. Seems I said it was the only option. My bad.
However, I still disgaree with the claim that we did not progress in design and manufacture. We did. Even the cheapest equipment today has got built in quality compared to its price, which was not possible to achieve say thirty years ago. I am not condoning mp3 here but to get the surround sound from a 29.99 mp3 device in 70s would be unthinkable. Or in 80s it would require a second mortgage to buy it.
I think we are missing the fact that we belong to a certain generation. I believe an 18 year old today gets exactly the same excitement from his/her mp3 that we got from our turntables when we were younger. That's the way it is. My nephew couldn't give a toss about vinyl. Even the CD is an obselete object for him and he is quite happy listening to his music from his PC.
We may be thinking that they are missing something. To a degree it is true, in the way that our fathers thought we were missing a lot of things.
Good stuff,and yes I think you're right as regards the young folk of today.
Good post, Cemal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that no progress has been made today in the world of audio - that would be ridiculous and completely wrong.
However, I'm just highlighting from experience areas where I don't think much (if any) genuine progress has been made.
Bear in mind, when I talk about genuine progress in audio, I'm referring solely to out-and-out sound quality. I couldn't give a stuff about minaturisation, facilities, convenience or 'gadgetry'.
If a piece of equipment made now doesn't actually sound as good as its predecessor, then for me no real progress has been made, regardless of any other assets said new product may have.
Hi Anthony,
Thanks for posting your views on hard-wiring - that makes perfect sense, and clearly shows the major advantages of not using PCBs in a valve amp :)
I do realise, though, that you're not 'anti-PCB'. It is simply that there are certain applications where adopting one approach or the other is beneficial.
Out of interest, what thickness of (solid copper?) wire did you use for the point-to-point wiring inside the copper amp?
Marco.
anthonyTD
12-09-2010, 20:55
Good post, Cemal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that no progress has been made today in the world of audio - that would be silly and completely wrong.
However, I'm just highlighting from experience areas where I don't think much (if any) genuine progress has been made.
Bear in mind, when I talk about genuine progress in audio, I'm referring solely to out-and-out sound quality. I couldn't give a stuff about minaturisation, facilities or convenience.
If a piece of equipment made now doesn't actually sound as good as its predecessor, then for me no real progress has been made, regardless of any other assets said new product may have.
Hi Anthony,
Thanks for posting your views on hard-wiring - that makes perfect sense, and clearly shows the major advantages of not using PCBs in a valve amp :)
I do realise that you're not 'anti-PCB' - there are simply the right times and places to adopt both approaches.
exactly!
Out of interest, what thickness of (solid copper?) wire did you use for the point-to-point wiring inside the copper amp?
2mm.
Marco.
anthony,TD...
2mm - am I right in thinking that's a bit thicker than the norm, and it's solid copper, right? :)
Marco.
anthonyTD
12-09-2010, 21:34
2mm - am I right in thinking that's a bit thicker than the norm, and it's solid copper, right? :)
Marco.
hi marco,
yes quite substancial, it has to be due to there being no turrent boards etc for extra support.
from memory both earth and HT wiring in your amp is all solid core 2mm, with the inclusion of the HT wiring having red insulation!:lol:
anthony,TD...
Lol - may as well be thorough, eh? :eyebrows:
Marco.
Steve Eddy
12-09-2010, 22:24
as for us "liking distortion" that is only partly true, 2nd order or even harmonics yes, our ears actualy produce it, as for 3rd and higher orders ie, 5th 7th 9th etc, even small amounts are objectionable, that is why for eg we can tolerate badly designed single ended triode amplifiers producing sometimes in excess of 10%[low order] distortion and forgive them for it for the benefits they bring in musicality...
It's really less a matter of even order versus odd order as it is a matter of high order versus low order.
Low order distortion is less objectionable than high order distortion due to masking (see "critical bands"). Higher order distortion isn't masked so well and as a consequence is more audible,
However beyond simple audibility, it can still take a fair amount before it becomes objectionable. This is because higher order harmonics are not inherently objectionable.
Consider that a single note from even the most beautiful sounding musical instrument is ultimately just a highly distorted sinewave with a rich mixture of even and odd order harmonics. This is what forms the basis of additive synthesis (of which Wendy Carlos is perhaps the most famous practitioner) where you start out with a pure sinewave for the fundamental and then add other sinewaves at the harmonic frequencies in varying amounts to effectively reconstruct the sound of a real instrument.
se
Steve Eddy
12-09-2010, 23:03
Agreed. Seems I said it was the only option. My bad.
No worries. We're on the same page now.
However, I still disgaree with the claim that we did not progress in design and manufacture. We did. Even the cheapest equipment today has got built in quality compared to its price, which was not possible to achieve say thirty years ago. I am not condoning mp3 here but to get the surround sound from a 29.99 mp3 device in 70s would be unthinkable. Or in 80s it would require a second mortgage to buy it.
Sure, we're better able to build things very small and cheaply and still have them perform reasonably well due in large part to advances in photolithography and cheap labor in China.
But it seemed to me that John, in his original post, was trying to get at something a little more fundamental than that.
I took him to be asking whether or not modern equipment necessarily gives us all that much more, in terms of the actual listening experience (and setting aside such things as smallness, cheapness and convenience) than equipment did decades ago.
I think we are missing the fact that we belong to a certain generation. I believe an 18 year old today gets exactly the same excitement from his/her mp3 that we got from our turntables when we were younger. That's the way it is.
That's always held true for the majority. That's why there's always been a market for less expensive, poorer performing products. Those who have sought the higher and highest levels of performance have always been a distinct minority.
And not all 18 year olds today get exactly the same excitement from their MP3 players as we did from our turntables when we were younger. Many of them are tossing out their MP3 players in favor of vinyl. In fact, it was this very age group who played a pivotal role in keeping vinyl alive and in many ways are responsible for the current vinyl revival.
We may be thinking that they are missing something. To a degree it is true, in the way that our fathers thought we were missing a lot of things.
And some aren't missing anything from their perspective. But many of them are missing something for the simple reason that many of them don't even get exposed to anything other than what's directed at the mass market.
There will be those 18 year olds who upon experiencing vinyl (or even digital for that matter) on a nice vintage system will absolutely fall in love with it. And they will be the ones who carry our passions into the future.
So don't write them all off so casually.
se
Good post Steve - my last visit to the local record shop I couldn't move for teenage punks digging through my adolescence - how very dare they! :lol:
The Grand Wazoo
12-09-2010, 23:54
Don't know who said it first, but I've repeated it often:
"This generation of teenagers are the first ones who realised their parents record collection is cooler than their own".
Steve Eddy
13-09-2010, 00:05
Good post Steve - my last visit to the local record shop I couldn't move for teenage punks digging through my adolescence - how very dare they! :lol:
HA!
And yeah, some are even into the older music and not just modern rap and hip-hop.
se
Steve Eddy
13-09-2010, 00:06
Don't know who said it first, but I've repeated it often:
"This generation of teenagers are the first ones who realised their parents record collection is cooler than their own".
Great quote!
se
anthonyTD
13-09-2010, 09:12
It's really less a matter of even order versus odd order as it is a matter of high order versus low order.
Low order distortion is less objectionable than high order distortion due to masking (see "critical bands"). Higher order distortion isn't masked so well and as a consequence is more audible,
However beyond simple audibility, it can still take a fair amount before it becomes objectionable. This is because higher order harmonics are not inherently objectionable.
Consider that a single note from even the most beautiful sounding musical instrument is ultimately just a highly distorted sinewave with a rich mixture of even and odd order harmonics. This is what forms the basis of additive synthesis (of which Wendy Carlos is perhaps the most famous practitioner) where you start out with a pure sinewave for the fundamental and then add other sinewaves at the harmonic frequencies in varying amounts to effectively reconstruct the sound of a real instrument.
se
hi steve,
i have written many posts on this type of discussion and therefore decided in this case to just simplify my point, you have gone into more detail as to why we find diffrent types of distortion more obvious and therfore objectionable which is fine.:)
A...
anthonyTD
13-09-2010, 09:13
Don't know who said it first, but I've repeated it often:
"This generation of teenagers are the first ones who realised their parents record collection is cooler than their own".
nice one chris!:)
A...
And not all 18 year olds today get exactly the same excitement from their MP3 players as we did from our turntables when we were younger. Many of them are tossing out their MP3 players in favor of vinyl. In fact, it was this very age group who played a pivotal role in keeping vinyl alive and in many ways are responsible for the current vinyl revival.
And some aren't missing anything from their perspective. But many of them are missing something for the simple reason that many of them don't even get exposed to anything other than what's directed at the mass market.
There will be those 18 year olds who upon experiencing vinyl (or even digital for that matter) on a nice vintage system will absolutely fall in love with it. And they will be the ones who carry our passions into the future.
So don't write them all off so casually.
se
You definitely have a point there. Again my bad. I did not mean to write them all off. But I am afraid we are the minority. This obviously does not mean that at some period in time the analogue audio will become obsolete. It won't. There will always be a portion of young generation interested in it. That is why the valve is still here with us and it will always be here. I know with the stuff that I wrote so far since I have joined the forum some of you may have a wrong impression of me. All I am doing is to be realistic and open minded. But deep in heart I am primarily an analogue person and heavily on the craft side. I only use computers because I have to. I still hate programming. Its not that I can't learn it, I can. In fact I sit down and write psuedo programs on jobs that I wrok on, line by line and then give it to a friend of mine to put it onto a code. It could have been easier to write the code. So, I like craft and have certainly nothing against things like point to point wiring. But in technical sense I believe I have to be objective and realistic.
Anyhow, here are two of my mic-amp chassis. All of the components you see there is recyled from faulty cassette decks that I picked up on e-bay for 99p. Guess which deck it was. I have drawers full of old components like that waiting to be turned into gear for my studio. I can't design things like that for clients because it would cost arm and a leg to manufacture. So I get my pleasure out of building them for myself.
http://www.robotica.co.uk/sale/MicPre_01.jpg
http://www.robotica.co.uk/sale/MicPre_02.jpg
http://www.robotica.co.uk/sale/MicPre_03.jpg
anthonyTD
13-09-2010, 11:29
great job sahib!:)
anthony,TD...
Steve Eddy
13-09-2010, 14:15
Anyhow, here are two of my mic-amp chassis. All of the components you see there is recyled from faulty cassette decks that I picked up on e-bay for 99p. Guess which deck it was. I have drawers full of old components like that waiting to be turned into gear for my studio. I can't design things like that for clients because it would cost arm and a leg to manufacture. So I get my pleasure out of building them for myself.
That's just plain fucking awesome!
My hat's off to you, Cemal!
se
Don't know who said it first, but I've repeated it often:
"This generation of teenagers are the first ones who realised their parents record collection is cooler than their own".
i like that Chris
It make me fell better when my eldest daughters mates who are all around 19 and twenty come over to listen to music and say your dad has a great taste in music :)
Reid Malenfant
13-09-2010, 20:02
Anyhow, here are two of my mic-amp chassis. All of the components you see there is recyled from faulty cassette decks that I picked up on e-bay for 99p. Guess which deck it was.
Stunningly beautiful work there 2609
Looks like either Pioneer or possibly more likely Akai :scratch:
Whatever, those look absolutely fantastic :) Well done that man!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.