|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: VINTAGE STUPID - why not new posted by JWPATE on December 24, 2003 at 23:01:56:
Read your post with some interest. I'm about 3 years older than you, and still enjoy tinkering. I've pretty much tried everything over the years. So, naturally, I have a few comments.I currently am using and NAD C350 integrated amp. A remarkably good sounding piece of gear for the $325 I paid for it. The preamp is electrically separate, having it's own power transformer and power supply. The case is light gauge steel, with a molded plastic front panel. It looks cheap. And that bothers me. Yet, I have not found anything I like better. It dawned on me that if it had a heavy gauge steel case, and a milled aluminum front panel about 10 mm thick, it could be sold for $2500 as a "high end" product and the audiophiles would think it was a bargain. I even found myself thinking about doing that. Such is the pressure we put on ourselves for exclusivity, appearances, and just plain old hype.
More recently, I picked up a clean Dyna PAT-4 preamp in nice shape. These things were never known for great sound. But mine measured well through the line level stages. So I decided to run some simple tests, hooking it up though the tape monitor circuit of my NAD and using the level control to match the level to unity gain. Then when I switched the tape monitor circuit in or out there was no level change, and any change I did hear would be coloration introduced by the PAT-4. Bottom line? There was no difference I could hear with the PAT-4 in or out. It was completely neutral. I did not evaluate the phono stage. Inserting the NAD preamp into the PAT-4 tape circuit was equally neutral.
So I have two preamps that model the proverbial "straight wire with gain" in their line stages. (a number of other preamps or preamp sections of integrated amps or receivers have not passed this test, they have all added coloration of some sort). Why would I want to replace them? Cosmetics or the elitism of name brand recognition are the only reasons I can think of for line stages. True, I did not evaluate the phono section, and my test method won't work for phono amps. The NAD has none, and I did not check out the Dyna. So I guess if I needed a phono section or was unhappy with the one I had, this test would be worthless. But NAD makes a fine outboard phono amp for $139 as do many other companies, and if I needed a phono section, I would probably go that route.
I haven't done it recently, but some years ago I measured the RIAA equalization on a number of phono preamps. I was rather surprised just how many were off spec. by significant amounts, often differing in the left and right channels. Since this translates into frequency response variations, it's small wonder that many phono amps sounded different. As an experiment, I padded two different preamps that sounded quite different (and measured differently)to bring their RIAA curves to within +/- 0.2 dB. After that the two preamps sounded nearly identical, but only after the input impedances were corrected to the 47,000 ohm standard, and the input capacitance was equalized in both to the same value. So the circuit design itself was of little importance once the frequency response was made the same in both designs.
One more point. Floyd Toole of Harman International has run some tests showing that very low Q resonances of low amplitude are surprisingly audible. This same finding also applies to electronics in terms of frequency response variations. If you have ever played with the "tilt" control on a Luxman preamp, you'll know just how sensitive to small tilts the ear is. So, if a preamp (or other component) has a spec of 20-20k Hz +/-0.5 dB, and one is ruler flat through the range, and rolls off at the extremes, it will sound quite different than one which meets the same specs but is tilted downward over the whole range, being + 0.5 dB at 20 Hz and -0.5dB at 20 kHz. The folks who design equipment know about this and do take advantage of it. (for example, I had an Arcam CD player which was up 0.5 dB at 1 kHz in a broad rise, and was at -0.5 at the extremes. The result was higher midrange output and a forward sound compared to most other CD players.) Was that deliberate? I think it was. On first hearing it made the Arcam much clearer and more detailed sounding. Then there was the Mark Levinson power amp that met the same +/- 0.5 dB spec., but which was at reference level at 20, 1 kHz, and 20 kHz; and was +0.5 dB at 300 Hz and -0.5 dB at 3 kHz. Amps don't behave that way. Clearly, it was tweaked to have that contour and to have a distinctive and pleasing sound.
The hype is that advances in circuit design, premium components, etc. make the product sound "better". The reality is very often that it is not because of the wonderfullness of the circuit design, but because of deliberate tinkering with frequency response or other properties. You can do that with an equalizer, if that's what you want.
Bottom line, I really don't see much evidence of significant advances in circuit designs or construction techniques in electroncs. The better vintage gear, in good condition and checked for frequency response should be able to hold it's own against the latest and greatest. There is a caveat! Bench testing of frequency response is of no value if there are impedance mismatches at the inputs or outputs. I have found quite a number of mismatches that color the sound. So in the end, it's not so much component quality that counts, but the matching and interfacing of the components that counts. You still have to try it and see for yourself how it sounds in your system.
Follow Ups:
Agreed. It seems like all the sane people hang out in the vintage asylum. I have a PAT-4 in a garage system and it sounds fine. I think to most reviewers, amps and preamps either sound like they look or like someone else told them it would sound. One or two golden ears said they didn't like the PAT 4 and the rest of the audio lemmings suddenly heard problems that weren't there when they first auditioned it. Go figure. I have been telling people that the fancy cables are nothing but overpriced filters for years but for the most part no one is listening. The reality is the most audiophiles and audio reviewers don't understand enough to know what is real and what is b/s and stand ready to believe in the wonderfullness of everything from $20K phono stages to cone shaped solid metal vibration isolation to all sorts of magic aborbers and enhancers. Oh well its their money. I choose to spend mine on things that might actually have a snowballs chance of improving the sound.
Bob,Amen to that! A funny story about preamps was Stereophile and Bob Carver. He sent them a new preamp to review. They hated it. But they contacted Bob, pre-article. He told them something must be wrong with the unit he sent. Send it back, and he'd check it out. He did check it out and found nothing wrong. Cleaned it up, put on a new label with a new serial #, and sent it back with a letter saying he had found some problems and was sending them one they had checked and found to be in spec. (that was true) They reviewed it a second time, and raved about how much better it was than the first example.
Kind of makes your point doesn't it?As you may have guessed, I am an engineer, and all the snake oil, hype and BS just aggrivates the S--- out of me. A couple of us dropped into a local "hype end" shop last year. Among the things we listened to was the "good" system in the main listening room. A pair of Revels driven by Mark levinson electronics. Total was around $40,000. We asked the owner to play two CD's for us. The Blind Boys of Alabama, a gospel group with some excellent backing, and the Telarc of Vivaldi's Four Seasons. The system gave a totally unrealistic vocal presentation on the Blind Boys (my friend said it sounded like some white guys trying to sound black) and on the Vivaldi, the harpsichord in the background was not resolved at all. However, a $1500 system of Vandersteen 1C and NAD electronics out in the open space in the shop in a very unfavorable placement sounded great on the vocals and easily resolved the harpsichord. After we got back here we tried the same two CD's on my den system with stacked Advents, Rotel CD player, and NAD C350 integrated amp and the vocals were "live" sounding and the harpsichord stood out clearly. On the living room TV system (Bose AM-5's, Sony XE-500 CD player, and Sony STR-D135 receiver, $140 at Best Buy, chosen for the high WAF)the vocals were very good and the harpsichord easily found. OK, so why would I want to spend $40,000 for an inferior system, unless it's bragging rights about the $$$ and the name plates. We've had this same experience several times in other shops. Set up is part of it, but they can't all be that badly set up, can they?
I won't get started on the cones and stuff. Suffice to say I worked for the first 12 years of my career running aerospace vibration and acoustics labs and 95% of the devices and claims are pure BS.
Thank you jerry,
For a most informative posting that was. Your central message is that not much has changed in audio signal-path circuits over the years from the first high fidelity achievement.
You will agree though, I believe, that the manufacturing tolerances have, in some cases, tightened. Capacitors are hyped the most. It is fair to say, I believe, that 2003 capacitors are more dependable and accurate than, say, those from the 1960’s. In particular, the big filter electrolytes, which through their failure (none are really expensive in themselves) often cause the wipeout of precious and irreplaceable transformers – and with them, another vintage amplifier is only a scrap source. With that said, I am amazed at the quality of those telephonic capacitors used on the Marantz model 9. I bought new ones from VAC to allow me the security of all-new electrolytic caps (before anyone sends hate-mail; yes, I did stuff the new, bias-caps inside the old cap- tubes,). But, on visual inspection, they were not leaking any electrolytic fluid (except the horizontal can – inside the chassis – that one I replaced), so I decided to attempt a reform. Two days of slow voltage increase resulted in a great surprise for me. This particular amplifier is as quiet as I could hope for……….no hum…..ho hiss………no errors. I have however; drifted from the subject, so let’s get back.
Another point, which I will be the first to concede, is that these vintage units, even the Marantz probably have too much complication. Actually I grew with it and so find such things as loudness control, low freq. elimination, tone-control, output selection (Stereo,mono,L, R, etc.) to be normal. It must be admitted though that 1. They are complicating/degrading the signal path, and 2. They are rarely used. The best modern units are able to claim “simple, pure signal flow” by eliminating a number of possible distortion problems. (They also, in the process, reduce costs and increase profits).
Bottom line, you guys have supported my gut feeling. For an old Redneck like me, the best bet is to maintain the components that I already know and love. Leave the ultra-pure audio quest to another generation. Through your young fingers will the sand sift, and the newest, latest gold/silver-wire siren-song draw its future support?
Still……….lets do be honest…. I am not yet dead. When the world re-opens its doors from this holiday turkey-eating session, I am looking into a certain BENT AUDIO MU step-up device. Canadian, so it seems. I do believe that would allow me to use the Benz Micro (tiny) output into the old tried-and-true Model 7 preamp MM phono stage. AND, will allow me to keep that VPI TNT turntable, now setting on the dining-table. Otherwise it was going up on eBay.
Best regards,
James
James,I think you're spot on in your assessment. Things like coupling caps don't need really close tolerances if the circuits are well designed, their variance should be part of the design consideration. But modern electrolytics are better in terms of life, dissipation factor, and leakage. And, yes, replacing or upgrading the caps in a vintage piece is probably just part of the regular maintenance program. Like brake linings, points, and plugs on a vintage car.
Things like close tolerance capacitors and metal film resistors were available in the 60's, but not readily. Today, it's gotten much easier to find those items. The other thing that has changed for the better is much wider use of precious metal contacts and connections. I absolutely do not believe gold and silver sound different than clean nickel or tinned contacts, but the gold contacts do not corrode and if the connection is left alone for a while, a true metallurgical bond occurs, eliminating any contact resistance. A lot of early 70's electronics (Pioneer, Sansui, Kenwood) made extensive use of wire wrap terminations in receivers and such. Over time, these connections do corrode/oxidize with the result of poor connections and degraded sound. I've soldered up literally dozens of amps, preamps and receivers that used wire wraps, and the sonic improvement is immediately noticeable. Modern gear, with very large PC boards eliminates most of the board to board connections, and they will not degrade as much or as fast. Also, I think later PC board production techniques with wave soldered boards gives a better and more consistent joint than hand soldered. Just about every 60's or 70's Harman-Kardon unit I've had has had very poor quality soldering and many have had cold solder joints or rosin joints which have degraded over time. You don't see those problems with wave soldered boards to the same degree. You also don't see them on hand wired point to point wiring on older factory gear from Marantz, McIntosh, Fairchild, Scott, Fisher, or Dyna.
Before I close, a comment on phono systems. Back when everybody used phono, the need for proper cartridge loading was well known and talked about in all the newstand magazines. Load capacitance and load resistance for most all high output MM cartridges was published. Phono sections were measured in test reports and load resistance and capacitance for many preamps and receivers were available. The low output MC cartridges were much more of a mystery. That still seems to be true. It's still very much a trial and error kind of thing; trying to match a cartridge to a MC pre-preamp or transformer. Also, because of the very low outputs, this is an area where gold plated connections, good grounds and shielding are essential.
I have noticed with speaker cables and witrh interconnects, that a new one, brought in to replace the older, sounds better, simply because it has fresh clean contacts. This is probably true of components like preamps or pre-preamps as well. A thorough treatment with Deoxit, and tightening of connections can make a surprising difference in older cables and wires, and components. I also soldered up all the internal mechanical connections in my speakers (wire nuts and slip-on connections) and it made a definite difference in the left-right match of my speaker pairs, and the overall smoothness.
So yes, I still think the basic circuits in the old stuff are as good as they need to be. But there is preventive maintenance to be done, newer caps are better, simpler is better to a point (I want one volume knob) until it affects convenience or basic functions, and phono stages are the primary area of differentiation in preamps.
I also think it's absurd to pay as much for a component as for a new car. My wife and I just returned from a 25 day cruise and tour of Australia and new Zealand. It cost as much as her 2002 Focus ZTS list price. So we can afford items in that price range. But I absolutely refuse to even consider paying that much for my hi-fi gear. First, I don't think it's necessary for sound quality; second, I think it's very poor value for money; and third, I resent being played like that; whether I can afford it or not. How can a little box with a few electronic components cost as much as a car? The car contains far more electronic components (on board computer, voltage regulator, radio, CD player, amplifiers, controls for lights, power windows, remote entry, temperature controls, etc.) plus an engine, interior, lighting, steering, etc.
Jerry
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: