 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.69.134.146
Stereophile, ca. 1971 (as seen in a Dynaco brochure, available from www.hifiengine.com
Now I can pinpoint the Singularity; feels good.
all the best,
mrh
Follow Ups:
The PAT-4 was simply horrible.
Hirsch was definitely deaf. It would seem that Holt wasn't far behind.
also stated that the JBL L100 was uncommonly flat from 30 to 20kHz. discuss:
...regards...tr
My brother had a pair of the 4311 Studio Monitor which I gather was very similar to the L-100.
And NO, it was good, 3-way, 12 inch of the times. Peaky above port tuning and not much below.
I don't know HOW they rate 'studio monitor'.
As an aside, my RSL 3600 which was a SoCal made COPY of the 4311 actually had better HF extension and dispersion due to the small dome tweeter.
Too much is never enough
only at low levels or DIRECTLY on axis but only for music analysis, not for enjoyment. the bass hump hid the little low bass they did have. infinitys of the time were a MUCH better buy.
we always laughed at the RSLs whicch didn't get good until the speed screens. today, RSL is back in business and his satellite/subwoofer system is a great buy.
...regards...tr
Actually, I SOLD my RSL3600s for 200$ and used that to fund the purchase of some MG-1s.
I've never looked back from that purchase and indeed, sent 'em off to White Bear Lake maybe 20+ years later, to get 'em rebuilt. The only question from Magnepan? What color did I want the Grill Cloth.
Too much is never enough
i almost bought MG1s but ended up with rogers LS3/5As instead. hard choice. i do not regret the rogers purchase but wish i could have afforded both.
now i have MMGs (and spendor s3/5s) and don't want to part with them.
...regards...tr
I was never 'in the loop' and wouldn't have known rogers LS3/5 from Rogers and Hammerstein. or Rogers Sound Labs, for that matter.
But when I heard the MG-1 I KNEW. it was so right as to be the ONLY speaker I'd own for the next 20+ years.
People I bought them from were very advanced DIY audio guys. They were even building their own TurnTable last I heard. While I was auditioning the Maggies, they BLEW UP their amp trying to drive some wacky load. An ultrasonic-ish chirp was the amps last gasp. I suspect ALL output devices went open.
Too much is never enough
Heard the Sat/Sub RSL re-do 3 or 4 years ago at T.H.E. Newport.
I wonder how much Speed Screens would cost in TODAYs $$$?
Too much is never enough
the sub/sat system that RSL sells now is NOY a re-do. it is a new design.
...regards...tr
The gap between the original owner's SALE to the sales staff and the closing of the stores was maybe 4 or 5 years, IIRC.
The original ownerr bought the name back maybe 20 or so years Later and that's when the Sat/Sub stuff happened. I liked 'em, but have not the room or need.
If I got something for my garage, it'd be a Thrift Store find. My Tivoli #1 is fine for now.
Too much is never enough
i know numerous people that have bought them and have been quite happy. that includes some that just use the woofer.
...regards...tr
that the SCD-777ES was "not merely a Class A component, it's a steal." I bought the thing and it was flat and lifeless. I feel that the outcome of that review was just as lame as perfect sound forever, of which Scull probably has poked fun at a time or two himself, as he knew all along that CDs sucked. After several thousand dollars of mods, Allen Wright stuff, the 777 finally worked for me. The point is that Hirsch is not alone. They are all rah rahs for new technology, as it is their job to drum up interest and keep an industry progressing. So to keep on singling one guy, when they are all at times just as guilty as Hirsch is BS.
Yeah, Allen's mods made that a very good sounding SACD machine. I only heard the top level of mods though at Allen's shop.
March, 2004:
I've thought highly of the very practical [Sony] 775 since the moment it serendipitously landed in my system. It was in the fall of 2002, two days after I sent my Sony SCD-777ES ($3,500) out for repair, that I realized we needed music for a gathering my bride was hosting that evening. Was I gonna be jumping up and down from the festivities every 20 minutes to spin vinyl all night long? No way. I needed a cee dee player now. I headed out the door with my mind made up to buy a cheap carousel player just to get us through. No more than $200 would be spent.
Now, there's something to be said for having a vision even if it's a lame one. My car practically steered itself to Circuit City where I found the [Sony]775 five-disc SACD player on closeout for $180 and snapped it up. Sure, this should tide me over for two weeks or so, I thought. After spending a few days with it, I called around and found that Best Buy had a floor model they were selling for $130. Got that one, too. Long story short: When the triple-seven returned from surgery, I took it to post-op (my secondary system) and let it settle-in for a few days. Then, it was back to the main system. I unplugged the 775 ... hooked up the 777 ... pressed play ... sat ... listened ... and sold [the 777ES].
If you don't become the ocean, you'll be seasick every day.
- Leonard Cohen
775, eh?
all the best,
mrh
The downside was that the Sony SCD-CE775 went out of production shortly
thereafter. It was replaced by the Sony SCD-CE595. We popped the top and
saw that critical plastics around the transport had gone from a flimsier
black to a denser white.
TRL's Paul Weitzel opined "The carbon black plastic used in the 775 had
some electrical properties that produced static and stray magnetism. Even
better, the transport on the new version is improved, the clamp is a lot
more solid and the 595 has a very good chip set."
If you don't become the ocean, you'll be seasick every day.
- Leonard Cohen
he isn't MY guru, that would be RH. but then he can't review every single piece.
julian hirsch was consistently a poor reviewer and quoting him made one a laughing stock. in stereo review, the best reviewer was not of equipment but of music: steve simels. he was short and to the point and usually right, and not afraid to print a negative review.
AUDIO magazine was much better and when tas came out, SR was only purchased because of its LOW subscription price. good pics (unlike tas and stereophile of the the day) and remains today as sound and vision, which is getting somewhat better BUT no steve simels.
...regards...tr
Bought a number of albums I wouldn't have on the strength of his reviews, and I don't think I was ever disappointed.
I remember his comment on Warren Zevon's ca. 1980 live album "Stand in the Fire". "It'll kill your houseplants" (or words to that effect)
Pretty sure he meant it as a compliment :-)
all the best,
mrh
.
"flat, but not in a common way" would, I'd posit, be one potential interpretation.
To illustrate:
"The Rocky Mountains are uncommonly flat."
"Dagmar was uncommonly flat."
all the best,
mrh
Dagmar.....now there's a name that reveals your age,,,and mine.
...regards...tr
I know my Dagmars ;-)
all the best,
mrh
also. TRANSistors!!!
...regards...tr
Nt
~!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
Thanks! for sharing. The same can be said for Pass Labs!
People eventually discovered that high power-consumption, heat, hum, and low output were not for them. Go figure.
----------------------------
"Use adjectives instead of numbers, and you'll never be wrong again." ~ The Wizard of Audio Oz
Never heard in my father's house after the switch to SS amps: "Gee, I really miss that 'tube sound'."
BTW, my tube amp does not hum or produce noticeable heat and has plenty of power for my speakers. Go figure.
Cheers,
91.
"Confusion of goals and perfection of means seems to characterise our age." Albert Einstein
You'd achieve much better performance with a solid-state amp. But I suspect that isn't the point. I don't know where the "quality" thing comes from. I have solid-state gear that's decades old that's never seen the inside of a repair shop.
I grew up in a house with a livingroom stereo powered by tube amps. My father, a solid-state physicist, made them. I know the power and heat issues involved when tube amps have to push 380 watts per channel. My guess is your stereo isn't that powerful.
Until the amps were replaced with solid-state models, the time I could spend using the livingroom stereo was severely rationed, because of the extreme power consumption.
I'm guessing I know a lot more about tube technology than most "audiophiles", and I think the people who imagine tube technology has some kind of performance advantage over solid-state technology just believe whatever Shane at Audio Boutique tells them. See: monophonic cartridges, turntables.
----------------------------
"Use adjectives instead of numbers, and you'll never be wrong again." ~ The Wizard of Audio
Audiophile [n.]: someone romantically involved with the word "involving".
Nt
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
