Why is HFW so biased against vintage cartridges?

[DSJR]

You know Marco, your posting language can come on a bit strong. I can deal with it - just about - , as I spent over thirty years trying to "speak the other guys language" in the hope of meeting somewhere around half way and getting a sale, thereby justifying my existance, but I can also understand this manner putting some people's backs up. I've done it too, but it was Neil primarily that I upset, hopefully momentarily, from recounting some of the situations I've found myself in - many wonderful, but one or two still hurt many years on.....

I wish I had some disposeable income to try some of the things mentioned on here. Richard's load-resistant phono stage really appeals as a "fit-and-forget" style of product. The ANT units with their slightly bright RIAA eq look great in their way as well, as so many cartridges have a treble droop (Naim phono stages are slightly bright in measurable sound too as I recall from reviews).

I just wish that we could all use more smilies to justify or enhance what we post The emotions behind the posts may just be better understood.

In a boring invigilation session recently (exam "Clash Supervision" of some A level students) I speed-read an excellent book on introducing Psychology. I found it fascinating...

[Marco]

Returning to sanity now, Richard, on the subject of hi-fi, I'd like to refer to something you said earlier about SUTs:

The manufacturers comments were written a long time ago when there were no active stages quiet enough, things have changed.

No doubt, and I'm sure that a 103 through your phono stage produces very acceptable results.

However, if Denon didn't consider that SUTs were still (even today) a viable way of amplifying the output of their MC cartridges, then why would they go to the trouble and expense of including these excellent devices (both of which I've heard) in their current product portfolio:

http://www.audiocubes2.com/brand/Den...ng_Trance.html

http://www.audiocubes2.com/brand/Den...ansformer.html

Are you telling me that both of these units are simply anachronisms and have no relevance in today's marketplace?

You have not heard the phono stage I use, where as I have heard many transformers.

No, and I’ve already said as much. But I would like to. May I ask which Denon SUTs have you heard and in what context?

Marco.

[Steve Toy]

Richard, I only edited your quote of something I wrote and subsequently deleted at the same time you posted. The rest of your message remains intact.

[Marco]

Hi Dave,

You know Marco, your posting language can come on a bit strong. I can deal with it - just about - , as I spent over thirty years trying to "speak the other guys language" in the hope of meeting somewhere around half way and getting a sale, thereby justifying my existance, but I can also understand this manner putting some people's backs up.

LOL. No doubt you're right, but none of our posting styles are perfect, are they?

I'm glad you can deal with it because I ain't changing it now for no bugger!

I am who I am, and I tell it as I see it. I'm outspoken, confident and opinionated - and so what I write is often controversial. I make no apologies for that. However, one thing you'll NEVER see me do is deliberately insult someone by using invective where there is no evidence of any provocation.

I always show people respect and courtesy no matter how much I disagree with their viewpoint. This is a basic human right, and a policy that should automatically be adopted by everyone in all aspects of life, not just on forums.

If everyone did this then there would be much less arguments and bad blood, but arguably life might also be a little boring

Marco.

[WikiBoy]

Returning to sanity now, Richard, on the subject of hi-fi, I'd like to refer to something you said earlier about SUTs:



No doubt, and I'm sure that a 103 through your phono stage produces very acceptable results.

However, if Denon didn't consider that SUTs were still (even today) a viable way of amplifying the output of their MC cartridges, then why would they go to the trouble and expense of including these excellent devices (both of which I've heard) in their current product portfolio:

http://www.audiocubes2.com/brand/Den...ng_Trance.html

http://www.audiocubes2.com/brand/Den...ansformer.html

Are you telling me that both of these units are simply anachronisms and have no relevance in today's marketplace?



No, and I’ve already said as much. But I would like to. May I ask which Denon SUTs have you heard and in what context?

Marco.

God you really talk bolloocks when you want to, especially when your back is up. You made a load of presumptions in your last post and I cannot be bothered to rise to them. Basically you take advantage of your position here to *bully* and push your point of veiw through by running rough shod over eveyone you think is in your way.

I couldn't give toss what Denon say, they try to sell their product, like everyone else apart from me. There are now a growing number of good transistor, fet or op-amp based MC phono stages on the market. There is now only two logical reasons for owning a SUT 1/ you prefer the limitation they put on the signal (I know you will now fly off the handle again but it is fact! unless you are willing to spend hundreds or even thousands on one they are a distinct and sub standard compromise). 2/ you want to use a valve phono stage for what ever reason, so you then need a SUT as valves have as much chance of amplifying an MC with acceptable noise levels as you have flying to the moon with a feather up your arse. So SUT became the excuse for the bottleheads - as I said before, marketing, turn a liability into and asset.

I have never once said SUTs are an anachronism, once more you invent for effect. I have said clearly on many occassions, if people use their ears and not others or others bullshit to buy product then they have bought the best for them. If I dissagree with their decision it is *my* choice, but I don't bully them or force my point of view on them like you do.

What makes you think the Denon transformers are any different to other transformers. I don't think you even know how a transformer functions. All the nonsense of matching will come out again, BUT ask yourself why does it become so important, because it is *really* struggling to do the job, and I have explained why many times before. Once again marketing, turning a deficiency into an asset by convincing people of the bullshit. If there is headroom then it becomes a very minor problem.

You have set yourself up as some sort of oracle who can never be wrong, but your knowledge is extremely limited and is the knowledge of a user, who can never understand how and why only what they have experienced. So unless you are omnipotent (perhaps you think you are) you cannot have heard all the possibilities in any subject or parameter, so you are talking from a very shallow lake of knowledge, which if you were an honest man to yourself or others you would admit to.

[Beechwoods]

How's about splitting this thread off into Critics Corner? The last post about vintage cartridges was at least 2 days ago!

[Marco]

Oh dear, isn't this fun? Ok, Richard, once more unto the breach. I really am a glutton for punishment!

Basically you take advantage of your position here to *bully* and push your point of veiw through by running rough shod over eveyone you think is in your way.

Bullshit - again that's just your jaundiced way of looking at things. If it suits your agenda, think what you like

I couldn't give toss what Denon say...

Now that's not arrogant or closed-minded in any way is it? Of course not!

...they try to sell their product, like everyone else apart from me.

Of course, but that doesn't make it bad or 'technically wrong', does it?

There are now a growing number of good transistor, fet or op-amp based MC phono stages on the market.

I completely agree, and quite a few people on this forum and elsewhere use them.

There is now only two logical reasons for owning a SUT 1/ you prefer the limitation they put on the signal (I know you will now fly off the handle again but it is fact!

I'm not disputing it, but here's another fact... Hi-fi is all about choosing your compromises. I prefer the compromises of an SUT and valve MM stage, and you prefer the compromises of an active MC stage. Neither approach is unquestionably 'superior' to the other.

The true arbiter of anything in hi-fi are the ears of the listener, and also system context. In that respect, measurements or 'scientific proof' do not matter much, so I'm afraid that given this fact, whatever method you consider for amplifying the output of an MC cartridge as being 'technically superior' is completely irrelevant. You cannot dictate to someone what compromises they should choose.

unless you are willing to spend hundreds or even thousands on one they are a distinct and sub standard compromise).

"Sub standard" maybe, in terms of your technical opinion, but not necessarily "sub standard" if the compromises someone wants to choose differ from yours.

2/ you want to use a valve phono stage for what ever reason...

Such as because it's better than any other SS stage you've heard so far, perhaps?

...so you then need a SUT as valves have as much chance of amplifying an MC with acceptable noise levels as you have flying to the moon with a feather up your arse. So SUT became the excuse for the bottleheads - as I said before, marketing, turn a liability into and asset.

More jaundiced, blinkered bullshit, I'm afraid. I use a valve MM phono stage with an SUT because it sounds absolutely fantastic, and better than any active SS MC phono I've heard so far. Why can't you accept that simple fact instead of insisting on putting rather crass (and inaccurate) labels on people?

I have never once said SUTs are an anachronism, once more you invent for effect.

The reason I asked you the question was not to "invent" anything, but to clarify the point you were making.

I have said clearly on many occassions, if people use their ears and not others or others bullshit to buy product then they have bought the best for them.

I think you're clearly lacking introspection. If you honestly believe that then why can't you extend this courtesy to those who use and enjoy equipment that is derived from a different technology to that which you use, manufacture, and deem as being 'superior', instead of rather disrespectfully labelling them with some crass terminology or description that you've invented in your head?

Oh, and I'd like an answer to that one please!!

If I dissagree with their decision it is *my* choice, but I don't bully them or force my point of view on them like you do.

Really??? Do you HONESTLY believe that?? Have you actually tried re-reading your posts on forums???? My God, you are so detached from reality it's untrue. One day you might come out of that tunnel of yours and wake up and smell the coffee, but as they say, I suspect pigs will fly first.

What makes you think the Denon transformers are any different to other transformers. I don't think you even know how a transformer functions. All the nonsense of matching will come out again, BUT ask yourself why does it become so important, because it is *really* struggling to do the job, and I have explained why many times before.

Experience tells me that Denon transformers (and the A23) optimise the sound of the DL-103 better than any other transformers I've heard so far, and way better than any active MC stage I've heard *so far* - it's as simple as that. However, I'm up for being convinced differently as a result of something better being demonstrated to me. Show me how much better an NVA MC stage is and I'll gladly acknowledge it!

You have set yourself up as some sort of oracle who can never be wrong...

What a load of utter pish (as they say in the city of my birth)! Again, that's just your blinkered view of things. However, how many people do you think would say that about you?

...but your knowledge is extremely limited and is the knowledge of a user, who can never understand how and why only what they have experienced.

What difference does that make? I use my ears to judge hi-fi equipment just like you do. I don't have to "understand" anything. If I think something sounds better then it is better, and if others try what I recommend and agree, then who cares what people like you think?

So unless you are omnipotent (perhaps you think you are) you cannot have heard all the possibilities in any subject or parameter...

What utter rot. Of course I haven't heard everything. Are you telling me then that you're the "omnipotent" one who's heard all the possibilities in any subject or parameter? That's how your rather jaundiced and blinkered opinions about valves and SUTs come across!

...so you are talking from a very shallow lake of knowledge, which if you were an honest man to yourself or others you would admit to.

Lake of knowledge? WTF are you on about? I only offer my opinions based on my available experience - nothing more. You undoubtedly have more experience than me in a number of areas (for starters you're much older than I am and have been at the sharp end of the industry), but in the specific areas where I do have lots of experience and knowledge (modified SL-1210s and 103s), it is by no means a forgone conclusion that you know more than I do on the subject.

Marco.

[Marco]

How's about splitting this thread off into Critics Corner? The last post about vintage cartridges was at least 2 days ago!

I'm not sure it really belongs there, Nick. This is simply extended thread drift because Richard feels like ranting and insisting on being confrontational. It'll be over when he feels that he wants to stop playing

If we have to move stuff later we can do it then

Marco.

[Ian Walker]

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeawn

[Beechwoods]