Dont get stressed if you think your system isn't "Good Enough"...

[Barry]

Unfortunetly Tannoy seems to be going the same way since its new owners took control, hopefully that may change once they get more aquainted with what the brand and the products mean to so many.Quad is not the same company as it once was. Like so many small companies bought up by big corporations to add to their portfolio, they quickly lose interest in servicing and repairing older models.

I certainly found it so with Madrigal's attitude to early Mark Levinson gear, and it's a great shame the same is being applied by Quad's new owners. Does anyone have similar experiences with early KEF gear, now that KEF are part of Gold Peak group?

[anthonyTD]

Unfortunetly Barry Tannoy seems to be going the same way since its new owners took control, hopefully that may change once they get more aquainted with what the brand and the products mean to so many.

Unfortunetly Tannoy seems to be going the same way since its new owners took control, hopefully that may change once they get more aquainted with what the brand and the products mean to so many.Quad is not the same company as it once was. Like so many small companies bought up by big corporations to add to their portfolio, they quickly lose interest in servicing and repairing older models.

I certainly found it so with Madrigal's attitude to early Mark Levinson gear, and it's a great shame the same is being applied by Quad's new owners. Does anyone have similar experiences with early KEF gear, now that KEF are part of Gold Peak group?

[Opti-cal]

In my opinion [and please bear in mind it is just my opinion] the Quad 57 over-all is a better speaker than the 63, yes, the 63 has more bass, but i think by doing so, it messed with what the original 57 exceled at, to me the clarity in the mid to top is cleaner on the 57, although the actual flat frequency response is quite limited, the 57 is still capable of exceptional performance within its limitations.

Agreed 100%, having owned both, the 57 is more 'special'. 63 is slightly over engineered imo. With a quality pair of subs the 57's can breath. With a proper crossover relieving them of duties under 50-75hz or so

[Marco]

Apologies, Chris. After much delay, I've finally got around to this ...

These things are still available. Cars with some character, quality, unique furnishings. It's just that people have been conditioned and encouraged to be lazy regarding the amount of effort needed to obtain said examples.

People have been convinced they will be better off going for the convenient, time saving product should it be available, a view I simply do not share. However I do feel I'm in the minority and have been for some time now.

The seismic shift to use whatever is cheapest/most convenient is one thing, and I agree, but what drives us [and by 'us' I generally mean the masses] to believe in the notion that 'newest [as in the supposedly latest and greatest] is always best'?

Can we honestly say, hand on heart, that *every single* new invention, over the years, was no-brainer better than that which it replaced? And if not, especially when deep down we really preferred the old, why the hell did we supposedly 'upgrade' to the new, and not simply stick with what we had and actually preferred?

Have a think about how much that's happened to you (I mean everyone here), and specifically which items [doesn't have to be hi-fi related, it can be anything] you'd rather have kept over the years, and which its shiny new replacement didn't turn out to be an 'improvement' at all.

I'll start with lovely coal fires, being ripped out and replaced with clearly inferior gas or electric monstrosities, during the 60s and 70s, which is why we currently use a log fire/wood burner, and wouldn't swap it for anything else!

Or how about furniture that was at one time made by craftsmen and built to last, compared with the tat made now? Or perhaps writing a letter with a beautiful Montblanc pen (or similar), as opposed to using a typewriter for such, least of all a computer? Is digital photography superior to film, in *every* way?

Or if you'd rather keep it hi-fi related, what about the very best examples of vintage loudspeakers, compared with what's being produced now? Has streaming music really usurped the sound of a reel-to-reel tape machine?

Essentially. how often, over the years, either consciously or unconsciously, have you traded quality for convenience, or simply been a victim of blindly following trends, and worse of all trading feel-good factor (the joy of using and owning something of real quality) ultimately for the opposite?

Or when has a so-called 'labour saving' device ultimately turned out to be something that sucks the fun out of life, and which ultimately has served as a tool to dehumanise you...?

<Discuss>

Marco.

[Opti-cal]

Apologies, Chris. After much delay, I've finally got around to this ...



The seismic shift to use whatever is cheapest/most convenient is one thing, and I agree, but what drives us [and by 'us' I generally mean the masses] to believe in the notion that 'newest [as in the supposedly latest and greatest] is always best'?

Can we honestly say, hand on heart, that *every single* new invention, over the years, was no-brainer better than that which it replaced? And if not, especially when deep down we really preferred the old, why the hell did we supposedly 'upgrade' to the new, and not simply stick with what we had and actually preferred?

Have a think about how much that's happened to you (I mean everyone here), and specifically which items [doesn't have to be hi-fi related, it can be anything] you'd rather have kept over the years, and which its shiny new replacement didn't turn out to be an 'improvement' at all.

I'll start with lovely coal fires, being ripped out and replaced with clearly inferior gas or electric monstrosities, during the 60s and 70s, which is why we currently use a log fire/wood burner, and wouldn't swap it for anything else!

Or how about furniture that was at one time made by craftsmen and built to last, compared with the tat made now? Or perhaps writing a letter with a beautiful Montblanc pen (or similar), as opposed to using a typewriter for such, least of all a computer? Is digital photography superior to film, in *every* way?

Or if you'd rather keep it hi-fi related, what about the very best examples of vintage loudspeakers, compared with what's being produced now? Has streaming music really usurped the sound of a reel-to-reel tape machine?

Essentially. how often, over the years, either consciously or unconsciously, have you traded quality for convenience, or simply been a victim of blindly following trends, and worse of all trading feel-good factor (the joy of using and owning something of real quality) ultimately for the opposite?

When has a 'labour saving' device ultimately turned out to be a fun-sucking one, or one which has ultimately served as a tool to dehumanise you...?

<Discuss>

Marco.

Haha, no problem Marco, appreciate you coming back to it.

Excuse the somewhat indulgent response (possibly going to be a tad lengthy).

I've always associated with (more) and appreciated the values (and that pretty much covers inventions/technology/furniture etc) of yesteryear. I've spoken to my parents about this subject a little and they and myself, have always concluded I have so much more in common with those born (and whom have grown up) in the 70's/80's, myself having 'grown up' in the 90's. During this period the growth of technology was more linear, from colour TV's, electric mowers, seat warmers in cars, those kind of things.

Then the digital explosion happened, microchips were now just that and the internet came along. Things would never be the same again. The concept of taking a ten pence piece with you or reversing the charges in a phone box to plead with your mum for another 20 minutes down the part playing footie, would be dead an buried. Technology took a turbo-charged leap in all directions, a figurative technological big-bang and with it moving at such a rate, your point about there now being technology almost for technologies sake, is very valid and strikes a chord with me.

The manufacture of pretty much anything was now possible but no one really stopped to ask if these inventions were entirely necessary. Most people are very impressed with new technology for a while but then after that impressive 'shiny, new, must have' period, the initial excitement is over. This is a worry for the companies manufacturing these products and suddenly the PR machine must be cranked into over-drive to ensure that new technology is continuously 'pushed' into the collective consciousness of the masses to ensure continuous profit. This is at the heart of the problem.

Companies now seek to create a market before even releasing a product, if the product is failing there is now a platform to create a false 'buzz' around a product to ensure it will still make a good return for the company. This can be applied to many industries including the film/entertainment industries. The amount of utter tripe that is released on TV and at the cinema, which make it to screen simply because the media tell you it's coming and it's 'going to be big' is deplorable. There will be legions of people flocking to the cinema to see the latest 'Marvel' film (or whatever) no matter how crap the last one was because over the years they have been 'brainwashed' by marketing to accept that this is now the 'brand' that people should be associated with. It's the same with Apple/Nike etc and any number of other huge conglomerates.


Don't get me wrong there are good companies out there which make good quality items that deserve a buzz around them and deserve to do well, but the sea of utter crap swilling around with them 'drowns' a lot of the good products/companies trying to be true to their values and actually trying to make a good product for their customers. We see it in hifi too. Certain brands get all the attention and are 'ever present' in advertisements and front of house in shops, but are they actually good value or can provide the real 'breakthrough' sound they're advertising, categorically no. Unfortunately most of the products that 'rise' to the top (and are therefore accessible to the most amount of people on Amazon etc) are the ones with the most PR marketing and money behind them. They will be the most profitable for the company, not the best item in terms of quality/performance/value etc, those qualities are just not profitable.

People are now conditioned not to question if the company/technology is any good or not. No one is held accountable really. You can't even trust reviews you come across as most things have been heavily edited or are under the campaign of promotion themselves. There are very few completely neutral and unbiased platforms for finding out the necessary information before purchases. Most youtube reviews are paid for by someone (and often utter tosh anyway). The reviews left on companies websites are edited (often by the company themselves) as it seems it's almost against the law to call companies out or speak the truth, as the truth hurts and people/companies can't handle being hurt these days . . . .



Back to your point regarding old wood burning fires etc, yes but unfortunately those 'nostalgic' cornerstones are now subject to 'new world' (woke) restrictions in an attempt to tackle climate change etc. In reality its crap because these things could still be enjoyed IF the carbon/plastic issues were dealt with properly and offset in more positive ways. Instead of banning people having fires/burning wood/ probably having bloody BBQ's in the future, the problems of the 'big' polluters need to be addressed. Stopping a few people burning wood in the UK is going to do sweet FA in the face of China, McDonalds, Coca Cola land filling and felling their way into our oblivion.

It's interesting how technology has moved 'sideways' recently actually. Take mobile phones for example. They were on their way to getting smaller and smaller but even though we could make them microscopic now, the way people have decided to use them now, browsing/watching videos etc, they are arguable as large as they were 15 years ago. Albeit with a large screen replacing any buttons. This is due to the 'way' people use the technology now as our phones have now replaced what maybe 10 years ago people were using a tablet or iPad for. People seem happy enough to get their news/videos/social media from one device, something I can appreciate the convenience of. This is an example of the technology being fine tuned towards the requirements of the masses and tallies somewhat with the SUV argument (although I still don't like them). 'Give the people what they want' to quote a certain Bond film.



Gone slightly off tangent there BUT in summery I think we can see (and everyone here knows this anyway) that the main reason we don't see quality products (or far less of them anymore) is because they are not profitable for the companies that control the finances of the world. Therefore the only products that 'most' people have easy access to (the most important factor to them, or so they are told to think) are designed to be throw-away items which will need replacing/upgrading in the near future. THAT is how they maintain profit.


How do we break the cycle?


Maybe overall we can't as the monster is too big but I believe we can still take heart and enjoyment from seeking out these gems of quality which still do exist in a world of false idols.

[anthonyTD]

Haha, no problem Marco, appreciate you coming back to it.

Excuse the somewhat indulgent response (possibly going to be a tad lengthy).

I've always associated with (more) and appreciated the values (and that pretty much covers inventions/technology/furniture etc) of yesteryear. I've spoken to my parents about this subject a little and they and myself, have always concluded I have so much more in common with those born (and whom have grown up) in the 70's/80's, myself having 'grown up' in the 90's. During this period the growth of technology was more linear, from colour TV's, electric mowers, seat warmers in cars, those kind of things.

Then the digital explosion happened, microchips were now just that and the internet came along. Things would never be the same again. The concept of taking a ten pence piece with you or reversing the charges in a phone box to plead with your mum for another 20 minutes down the part playing footie, would be dead an buried. Technology took a turbo-charged leap in all directions, a figurative technological big-bang and with it moving at such a rate, your point about there now being technology almost for technologies sake, is very valid and strikes a chord with me.

The manufacture of pretty much anything was now possible but no one really stopped to ask if these inventions were entirely necessary. Most people are very impressed with new technology for a while but then after that impressive 'shiny, new, must have' period, the initial excitement is over. This is a worry for the companies manufacturing these products and suddenly the PR machine must be cranked into over-drive to ensure that new technology is continuously 'pushed' into the collective consciousness of the masses to ensure continuous profit. This is at the heart of the problem.

Companies now seek to create a market before even releasing a product, if the product is failing there is now a platform to create a false 'buzz' around a product to ensure it will still make a good return for the company. This can be applied to many industries including the film/entertainment industries. The amount of utter tripe that is released on TV and at the cinema, which make it to screen simply because the media tell you it's coming and it's 'going to be big' is deplorable. There will be legions of people flocking to the cinema to see the latest 'Marvel' film (or whatever) no matter how crap the last one was because over the years they have been 'brainwashed' by marketing to accept that this is now the 'brand' that people should be associated with. It's the same with Apple/Nike etc and any number of other huge conglomerates.


Don't get me wrong there are good companies out there which make good quality items that deserve a buzz around them and deserve to do well, but the sea of utter crap swilling around with them 'drowns' a lot of the good products/companies trying to be true to their values and actually trying to make a good product for their customers. We see it in hifi too. Certain brands get all the attention and are 'ever present' in advertisements and front of house in shops, but are they actually good value or can provide the real 'breakthrough' sound they're advertising, categorically no. Unfortunately most of the products that 'rise' to the top (and are therefore accessible to the most amount of people on Amazon etc) are the ones with the most PR marketing and money behind them. They will be the most profitable for the company, not the best item in terms of quality/performance/value etc, those qualities are just not profitable.

People are now conditioned not to question if the company/technology is any good or not. No one is held accountable really. You can't even trust reviews you come across as most things have been heavily edited or are under the campaign of promotion themselves. There are very few completely neutral and unbiased platforms for finding out the necessary information before purchases. Most youtube reviews are paid for by someone (and often utter tosh anyway). The reviews left on companies websites are edited (often by the company themselves) as it seems it's almost against the law to call companies out or speak the truth, as the truth hurts and people/companies can't handle being hurt these days . . . .



Back to your point regarding old wood burning fires etc, yes but unfortunately those 'nostalgic' cornerstones are now subject to 'new world' (woke) restrictions in an attempt to tackle climate change etc. In reality its crap because these things could still be enjoyed IF the carbon/plastic issues were dealt with properly and offset in more positive ways. Instead of banning people having fires/burning wood/ probably having bloody BBQ's in the future, the problems of the 'big' polluters need to be addressed. Stopping a few people burning wood in the UK is going to do sweet FA in the face of China, McDonalds, Coca Cola land filling and felling their way into our oblivion.

It's interesting how technology has moved 'sideways' recently actually. Take mobile phones for example. They were on their way to getting smaller and smaller but even though we could make them microscopic now, the way people have decided to use them now, browsing/watching videos etc, they are arguable as large as they were 15 years ago. Albeit with a large screen replacing any buttons. This is due to the 'way' people use the technology now as our phones have now replaced what maybe 10 years ago people were using a tablet or iPad for. People seem happy enough to get their news/videos/social media from one device, something I can appreciate the convenience of. This is an example of the technology being fine tuned towards the requirements of the masses and tallies somewhat with the SUV argument (although I still don't like them). 'Give the people what they want' to quote a certain Bond film.



Gone slightly off tangent there BUT in summery I think we can see (and everyone here knows this anyway) that the main reason we don't see quality products (or far less of them anymore) is because they are not profitable for the companies that control the finances of the world. Therefore the only products that 'most' people have easy access to (the most important factor to them, or so they are told to think) are designed to be throw-away items which will need replacing/upgrading in the near future. THAT is how they maintain profit.


How do we break the cycle?


Maybe overall we can't as the monster is too big but I believe we can still take heart and enjoyment from seeking out these gems of quality which still do exist in a world of false idols.

[Pharos]

I've always been, (oh here we go, another media cliché, eclectic, existential, algorithm, nudge, etc.) eclectic, and used this to try to keep the best from the past whilst combining it with the best new developments. Notably, quality of craftsmanship which has often now been lost, but is sometimes being addressed by high quality computer based production, (Mac SE30 cases an example). Surely there is little doubt that discoveries have helped us enormously, some from space research, and superglue is a real help.

To me the crux is in the lack of integrity of producers, who may often take an engineer's good design and then their accountants strip off expensive quality; nuts and bolts changed to pop rivets for example, and there is also a tendency to produce products which do not really take into account the user's quality of experience. I have just bought my third set of salt and pepper grinders in 20 years, all from Cole and Mason, and at last the latest set works well. The makers say that it is their best, and it should be at £50; the others were hopeless.

I have a personal dislike of Dyson products for many reasons, the main one being that plastic bearings are self degenerating once they get grit in them. They may produce purer air and cleaner surfaces, but they are expensive. I bought a Hoover Senior from the tip for £3 in '95, serviced it's bearings and brushes, made new cloth bags from pillow material for it on my 60 year old Singer201, and it is still functioning well. Maybe not as effective, but well built and also the emergence of allergy related to extreme hygiene, seems to counter its extreme pursuit.

At the high end of Hi-Fi, what we seem to get is better mechanics and aesthetics, more so than improved function IMO. I modify much new stuff anticipating weak points of potential failure, and have just built up a titanium bike based on '98 technology, Campag throughout, but using an Apex Grand prix pump from the 60s. Refurbished it is better than the supposedly best current Topic pump, and it has done 55 years of service.

In 1969 I was given a Ronson shaver for my 21st, and it packed up in '96 never having even had a new foil; the company went broke.

There is an old saying; "Possession is nine tenths of the law", my parallel is; "Self possession is nine tenths of achievement", and do not forget the tragedy of Edward Bernays' work.

I rest my case for my stance.

[Marco]

Great answers so far, guys! I'll get to them (probably much) later, as I've got my dad coming round for lunch, and then there's the footy, etc...

Chris, you and I are defo kindred spirits!!

Anthony, could I have you views on this please, as I suspect you have some interesting ones of your own, rather than simply concurring with someone else's, and sticking a smiley at the end, which appears to be your trademark these days!

I'd particularly like to hear your take on which examples of audio equipment, over the years, in your opinion may have represented a genuine technological advancement, but to your ears not an overall sonic one, and why?

Marco.

[Marco]

Just to quickly reiterate, folks... I'm not saying that there haven't been some genuine advances with new devices and technology, as undoubtedly there have.

What I'm *specifically* referring to, and what I'd like to see discussed, are new products you've bought, which after a period of use, you reluctantly came to the conclusion that what it replaced was either in some ways better, or simply better overall.

And here I'm NOT talking about price or convenience [how much time it might have saved you], but rather either how well built the item in question was and/or fundamentally good at its core function

Marco.

[anthonyTD]

Cheeky
I think from my point of view, having grown up watching my Dad salvage Electronic parts from anything electrical or electronic that was thrown away/discarded [and by the way in the 1960's 1970's we were light years away from the throw away world we see today] Hence I aquired a sense of "everything has a value" pretty early on in life, even today i still find it very difficult to part with all kinds of things where i feel may still have some use to someone somewhere, although i draw a line when it come to just hoarding stuff for the sake of it!

Tesla invisaged the mobile phone in the late 1920's, he even stated that in the future we would have a comunication device so small that it would fit in your shirt pocket, and in theory the mobile phone is a brilliant invention, if it is used for the purpose it was intended by those early pioneers like Tesla. Unfortunetly and as we all aware of these days, instead of these devices being used as a tool to help us in our daily life ie; comunication, they have instead enslaved us, people dont seem to be able to drag themselves away for more than a few minutes without checking them, this is just one example of how the increase in some technology can have an adverse or negative affect on society, some will argue that fact, and of course your completely entitled to your opinion.

As to technology that I feel has been a real game changer paticularly in Audio, well, some real game changers would have to be the ability to make and source better components, therefore to be able to build better equipment, and of course the introduction of Digital, although good analogue IMHO still has its place even in the best HI-FI systems of today.

Great answers so far, guys! I'll get to them (probably much) later, as I've got my dad coming round for lunch, and then there's the footy, etc...


Anthony, could I have you views on this please, as I suspect you have some interesting ones of your own, rather than simply concurring with someone else's, and sticking a smiley at the end, which appears to be your trademark these days!

I'd particularly like to hear your take on which examples of audio equipment, over the years, in your opinion may have represented a genuine technological advancement, but to your ears not an overall sonic one, and why?

Marco.