Is 'What It Sounds Like' All That Matters'?

[Macca]

Hmmm ! Not sure about that one, Macca. There are some aspects, like cartridges, that seem to constantly evolve and improve (at a cost, of course), so micro-engineering seems to have been on an upward path. I rather feel this also applies to other aspects of the vinyl chain, if not vinyl itself. Haven't got a clue about digital but I do wonder if the non-tangible (i.e. streaming etc.) music of today is not a great advancement on, say, ten years ago.

In some areas, like amplification, I do wonder, though, purely from an s.q, standpoint. I'd say that speaker technology has advanced, too, but possibly more by the employment of new materials than revolutionary design.

Agree on paper advances have been made in speakers, there is new tech that works very well, JBLs compression driver for example. Maybe I am skewed from reading this site but it does seem to me that most older enthusiasts tend to end up with big Tannoy DCs, Quad 57 or vintage JBLs as their final destination speakers. 50 year old tech and it still cuts the mustard. And we are talking people who could, within reason, buy any speakers they wanted. Cartridges I regret I know little about beyond I like Shures and Nagaokas. I've not read up on any advances made in that area.

[Marco]

Maybe I am skewed from reading this site but it does seem to me that most older enthusiasts tend to end up with big Tannoy DCs, Quad 57 or vintage JBLs as their final destination speakers. 50 year old tech and it still cuts the mustard. And we are talking people who could, within reason, buy any speakers they wanted.

I agree, and certainly come under the latter category. I don't think it's just this site, but if you read the likes of pfm, or any proper audio forum, here in the UK or abroad, you'll find many other discerning enthusiasts like me, who's ears tell them that the finest sound, not just with speakers, is achieved by combining the BEST of old and new technology.

Never underestimate that last bit, as the influence of the new [where REAL, and very advantageous, technological advances have been made] is just as important...

I assure you that if you heard my Tannoys before the crossovers were modified and upgraded with the BEST (there's that word again) modern components, you wouldn't have liked them anywhere near as much as you did when you heard them after said work had been done!

Ditto my Sony CDP/DAC, ditto the Croft, etc, etc, after it was similarly modified. It's not just a case of buying any highly revered 'obsolete old tat', firing it up, and then expecting miracles.... Doesn't happen that way.

You have to know how to get the best out of it (by understanding its strengths and weaknesses), and most importantly identify where the most significant technological advances have been made, in terms of the 'new factor', then implement them in your system, to bring out the BEST bits of the vintage gear, thus achieving a successful marriage of the BEST of old and new technology

Oh, and the *only* way you can do that is by using your own ears and judgement. You will not find the answer from the readout on any test equipment!

Marco.

[Macca]

Didn't you replace you crossover components like for like? Just putting in up to spec replacements would make a big difference if the old components were substantially drifted or failing. maybe capacitor tech has advanced in leaps and bounds, I don't know but it doesn't seem likely to me. I know you have one of those Bybee devices in your DAC. I've no idea about that, having not heard the before and after. You have to remember I am a Doubting Thomas. You got to show me to convince me. I don't do faith.

[Marco]

Didn't you replace you crossover components like for like?

Like for like, in terms of electrical value, which was necessary in order for it to work properly, but not in terms of the quality of the components themselves.

The BEST of today's polypropylene capacitors, for example, are EONS superior to anything produced in the 1960s, when my speakers were made - and then you've got the resistors and inductors - heck even binding posts are different animals these days!

No, the crossovers were completely reworked, but in a way that was both sonically sympathetic (with the original Tannoy design and drivers themselves), and of course electrically correct

Just putting in up to spec replacements would make a big difference if the old components were substantially drifted or failing.

That's usually the case with 50-year old loudspeakers. Certainly, the original crossover components will be, at best, somewhat 'tired'.

...maybe capacitor tech has advanced in leaps and bounds, I don't know but it doesn't seem likely to me.

There's no maybe about it, mate. It's a fact. Ask anyone who builds or experiments with equipment, and isn't afraid to spend decent money on components. Almost every piece of kit I use has benefited in some way from the injection of the BEST new components.

I know you have one of those Bybee devices in your DAC. I've no idea about that, having not heard the before and after. You have to remember I am a Doubting Thomas. You got to show me to convince me. I don't do faith.

I have no problem with that whatsoever, but I think you know me well enough by now, and respect my idea of what's a good sound (as I've demonstrated it you numerous times with my kit), to know that I wouldn't have retained the (one) Bybee in the Sony DAC, in the most influential part of the signal path, if it didn't genuinely improve the sound.

Marco.

[Macca]

Well we are not in disagreement about mixing old and new or updating vintage equipment. But that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

[Firebottle]

maybe capacitor tech has advanced in leaps and bounds, I don't know but it doesn't seem likely to me.

You have to remember I am a Doubting Thomas.

Capacitor tech has come on in leaps and bound in recent years. Some of the manufacturers have put in some astounding R and D.

Doubting Thomas

[Macca]

Capacitor tech has come on in leaps and bound in recent years. Some of the manufacturers have put in some astounding R and D.

Doubting Thomas

Well I said I didn't know and now I do.

[Marco]

Well we are not in disagreement about mixing old and new or updating vintage equipment. But that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

No, but it's to do with what we're currently discussing, and you've just admitted to learning something new, which is always good!

Marco.

[Macca]

Hey I'm always learning and putting together the pieces of the jigsaw. Especially with hi-fi. That's why I don't understand why so many other enthusiasts have a blind spot when it comes to that and just want to dumb it down to 'trust your ears.' As Primalsea says, it is totally unqualified advice. I suppose it is the nature of the modern world that what is complex must be overly simplified and what is actually very simple must be dressed up in a load of bullshit to make it look complex.

[Marco]

That's why I don't understand why so many other enthusiasts have a blind spot when it comes to that and just want to dumb it down to 'trust your ears.'...

It's not a case of 'dumbing down', though. It's a fundamentally correct thing to do, in the final analysis. That last bit is important because, as others and you have said, it's not JUST about trusting your ears, and feck everything else. That simply won't work.

You have to do your research and read up on stuff, some of which may be technical - and be willing to experiment.

All I'm saying is that, once you've done all that, and are judging the results, ultimately you have to trust your ears - and *at that stage*, if you're convinced that whatever you're hearing is right, you should always trust your ears/instincts MORE than what currently accepted science and engineering says, if the latter appears to contradict what you're hearing, and crucially in the final analysis, have faith in your own judgement.

After all, currently accepted science and engineering may not be telling the full story in that instance, or being applied in the correct way. You may have discovered something new that as yet hasn't been tested for - or can hear something, the existence of which at present can't be proven by measurements or currently accepted science and engineering. It's not impossible!

Modern life so often leads us to shun our natural instincts, and rely on some form of technology instead, promoting lazy thinking - and I believe that can lead us into forming many wrong conclusions, and not just with hi-fi. We need to embrace our gut instincts more, and learn to trust our senses, *when* we consider there is good cause to.

In this instance, the mistake folk make is doing the opposite, and that can often lead them down the wrong path - and to a lifetime of endless (ultimately disappointing) box-swapping, desperately trying to correlate what they hear, with technical facts or measurements, when in this hobby of ours, that's not always possible.

Not everything in life, which is genuinely experienced, can be proven by currently accepted science and engineering, or carries with it a ready-made technical explanation. But you can waste a lot of time trying to find one; something you may never achieve, whilst life, and a whole load of fun and musical satisfaction you could've otherwise had with your system, passes you by...

However, I don't think we're so far apart in our respective stances... In any case, why change a winning formula, if an 'ears first' approach to system building has succeeded in rewarding you with a superb system? As they say, don't 'fix' what ain't broken!

Marco.