The Home Entertainment Industry

[qsd-dan]

Anyone remember AM stereo? We had an AM radio station in the bay area (560) that used a C-Quam version of that for a while until 1993 or 1994. The only receiver at the time that could pick up and deliver that signal was in my mothers 1990 Plymouth Voyager (of all POS's). It did improve the experience but definitely nowhere up to FM stereo standards.

 

[qsd-dan]

Oh boy!
So I take it that you're one of those Audiophile guys.
I'll agree, the equipment does determine the final quality of sound.
My neighbor next door is into the "high-end" stuff too.
He's had me restore-service-tune up quite a few pieces over the years.
I'm the only one he trusts to work on that stuff.
So far he's brought me.....
2 Thorens 124's with the Grado wooden tonearms, flawless condition.
a Dual 701 in pristine condition
Marantz amp, Preamp
Macintosh amps,
A pair of AR LST speakers
A technics RS 1500 reel to reel, immaculate
Harman Kardon tube amps and preamps
Other assorted stuff.
He's even brought me some of his friends "high end" stuff to repair.

I've got a "modest" Technics system, hand-picked components, excellent "specs" and performance, with Advent Maestro speakers and an Akai reel to reel.
Linear tracking turntable with Audio Technica cartridge.
Along with a built-by me classic tube amp that gets occasional use.
And I designed a multi-function tape machine switching unit that also has the SRS system in it.
One day I put on a CD of Aretha Franklin's "I can't stand the rain", and it blew me away - I closed my eyes and I could swear she was right in front of me!
I've had some of my audiophile friends stop by and they've been impressed with my stuff, but I'm not one to make a big deal over it.

I'm also not one to go nuts with "high end" branded equipment though.
However, I can appreciate the quality of some of it.
But some brands are only adored, cherished and priced sky-high for their brand names. - the classic Audiophile brand bias syndrome.
For instance - Macintosh, the vintage stuff.
My neighbor's MC 2100 amp, he's got 2 of them now - over-rated in my opinion.
Go figure, the amp's rated at 0.25% harmonic distortion according to the manual.
While my Technics is listed as having only 0.008% - huge difference, even though those levels are really not heard by normal people, maybe perhaps by dogs or aliens from another planet with super-hearing abilities.

Yeah, cursed with golden ears. I could hear 26KhZ through my 20's and a early 30's so I needed decent sound. Most of the gear I picked up in the late 90's through mid 2000's was mid to late 70's TOL stuff when they were dirt cheap and the best kept secrets back then. I was running 4 Acoustic Research AR9 speakers (the late 70's/early 80's models, not the crappy 90's stuff after Teledyne sold it) and later 6 when I got a 7 channel Gemstone Blue Diamond Amplifier (400 WPC @ 4 ohms) along with an Arcam AVM 20 preamp. Anyone who is familiar with those 4 ohm speaker is aware that you need SERIOUS power as they eat wattage for breakfast and then some. I was originally running 2 Kenwood KR 9600 amps (160 WPC @ 8 ohms) and the deeper bass would stress them out pretty bad at times. From what I read, those speakers can dip down into the 2 ohm territory. The Gemstone would power all 6 without breaking a sweat. It also had much, much better fidelity than the Kenwoods (or anything else I owned), by a few miles. The Gemstone amps outperformed $10K monoblocks at the time so they better sound good, lol. Also have (still have) 2 Sansui QRX9001 (flagship) receivers when I was bigtime into quadraphonic. I'll probably sell those since I have a QSD-1 and QSD-2 stand alone decoders along with a Fosgate Tate 101a SQ decoder (with the rare optional remote control). I don't need those receivers to decode quad and they're worth 30 times what I paid for them 22-25 years ago.

Also had a Marantz 4400 (flagship) quad receiver with the oscilloscope for a while but preferred the sound and decoding of the Sansui 9001 and sold it (wished I had it now, it's worth almost 28 times what I paid for it). Started out with a Pioneer QX949A (flagship) in 1998. The quad matrix on that was horrible and the fidelity sounded like old car AM. The oscilloscope on it was cheesy compared to the 4400.

 

[phillymatt53]

I remember when FM was high fidelity For my local FM stations that changed around the mid-'00s : sounded slightly out of tune with a subtle ringy overtone and narrow dynamic range-sounded like a low rate download...I thought my radio was at fault...Last couple years sound has gotten better-higher bitrate perhaps- but still sounds digital ...analog sources still rule in a couple of my cars,living room,and moon shack

Some older FM radios are a bit sensitive to the stations these days.
I think it's due to poor upkeep of the transmitters, station maintaining, etc.
And as to the vintage equipment that we have, subtle aging goes on, both in old school tuning stages and the PLL ones.
A careful and proper alignment usually takes care of that.
Of course, you need the proper tools and test equipment and alignment knowledge, otherwise it's easy to make a mess,
I had to tweak my 1988 Technics PLL stages a tad, and get wonderful FM on it.

 

[phillymatt53]

Yeah, cursed with golden ears. I could hear 26KhZ through my 20's and a early 30's so I needed decent sound. Most of the gear I picked up in the late 90's through mid 2000's was mid to late 70's TOL stuff when they were dirt cheap and the best kept secrets back then. I was running 4 Acoustic Research AR9 speakers (the late 70's/early 80's models, not the crappy 90's stuff after Teledyne sold it) and later 6 when I got a 7 channel Gemstone Blue Diamond Amplifier (400 WPC @ 4 ohms) along with an Arcam AVM 20 preamp. Anyone who is familiar with those 4 ohm speaker is aware that you need SERIOUS power as they eat wattage for breakfast and then some. I was originally running 2 Kenwood KR 9600 amps (160 WPC @ 8 ohms) and the deeper bass would stress them out pretty bad at times. From what I read, those speakers can dip down into the 2 ohm territory. The Gemstone would power all 6 without breaking a sweat. It also had much, much better fidelity than the Kenwoods (or anything else I owned), by a few miles. The Gemstone amps outperformed $10K monoblocks at the time so they better sound good, lol. Also have (still have) 2 Sansui QRX9001 (flagship) receivers when I was bigtime into quadraphonic. I'll probably sell those since I have a QSD-1 and QSD-2 stand alone decoders along with a Fosgate Tate 101a SQ decoder (with the rare optional remote control). I don't need those receivers to decode quad and they're worth 30 times what I paid for them 22-25 years ago.

Also had a Marantz 4400 (flagship) quad receiver with the oscilloscope for a while but preferred the sound and decoding of the Sansui 9001 and sold it (wished I had it now, it's worth almost 28 times what I paid for it). Started out with a Pioneer QX949A (flagship) in 1998. The quad matrix on that was horrible and the fidelity sounded like old car AM. The oscilloscope on it was cheesy compared to the 4400.

Back when Quad started coming out, I worked as sales/management at a hifi salon and parts dealer.
I was never impressed with quad though, even our top line equipment.
I actually suspected back then that quad would not last long, and i was right.
People liked easy to use stuff - two-channel traditional stereo.
Which is what I suggested more, knowing the customer's interests.
What little quad stuff that we managed to sell, was to the "I want the latest trend" people, who were bought by advertizing.
Serious audiophiles stayed with traditional stereo.
These days, the "surround sound" crowd was also teased into the movie theater sonic effects.
Which basically was just another trend to make manufacturers and movie companies money.
It's all about attempting to get the public to "buy into" something, usually by glorification, sexy looking equipment (visual appeal) and aggressive advertizing.

 

[vacerator]

FM is still hifi, and has always been compressed. High definition FM came out, and I have never even heard what it sounds like. My 1992 GMC Sierra SLT had AM Stereo. I didn't see the point. It just wasn't FM. I see even here, with the stuff you guy's have, I'm no audiophile.

 

[kenwashesmonday]

Here in the NYC area, it seems that only the public and college FM stations use the dynamic range available. All of the commercial stations are severely compressed.

 

[vacerator]

I listen to WFUM 90.9 fm listener supported often. The broadcast tower is on the Willis Sears tower in Chicago.

 

[drewz]

This thread is based on my long-time experiences as a professional servicer of Home Entertainment Equipment, and my own personal equipment choices.
If any of it sounds "biased", it's only because I don't mince words. I like sharing the truth about such things to others in hopes that it'll save them money and any aggravation.
And, it's similar to the speaking out from others about Home Appliances and the current state of things.
So here goes......

We all want quality, and we all want to spend our money on something worthy.
But the industry mostly treats the public like silly puppets, catering to their conditioned lives with glorified advertizing and snazzy appearance.
I've been "in the guts" of literally thousands of products from TV's to high-end stereo stuff, along with "vintage" antiques/heirlooms that required special attention.

But as the decades progressed, I've noticed the so-called improvements and technology changes.
Some, were a good idea, others, not pretty.
The stuff sold these days in my opinion is garbage, in comparison to what I call "The Golden Years" of audio.
Those were from the early-late 1960's up to the late 1980's, centering on 1974 to 1980 as the peak years of "HiFi".

Look at what you're forced to buy these days, if you want something....
It may looks snazzy, and might even sound nice to your ears.
Digital processing can impress you.
Convenient bluetooth, streaming, etc., makes it more attractive, because you've been handed that stuff as a result of the slow conditioning process of society.

Then how come the substantial numbers of people wanting that vintage stuff again?
You know, the "Analog" stuff that used to be king.
I'll tell you.....
Because humans speak and hear in analog, not digital.
Once you add Digital to the mix, you're messing with the original sound.
Like I stated, processing analog is impressive to the ears, I know that.
But my trained ears can still, even at my age, tell the difference.
And no, it's not my mind doing tricks on me.
Listening to music in analog on analog equipment is and can be such a seductive and surprising experience that some have re-imagined again.
I hear people all the time telling me that.
Sure, I listen to CD's, and online to MP3's.
It's nice, and one can get used to that, even lazy.
But plop a record on a decent turntable..... voila...... something comes back to you that all those years of digital listening made you forget.

By the way, whenever you hear the mention of Tube equipment having a "warm sound", it's all in your head, something dreamed up by somebody on the internet because tubes have heated filaments which warm up and get hot.
My expensive testing equipment and analizing procedures don't have human ears or human biases stemming from internet talk to sway them.
And confirm what I'm saying.

I'm wondering if anyone here can understand what I'm trying to share, or feels the same way.
Thanks for reading.
M

I totally get it, while not the best maybe not the worst? I still love my New Vista Victrola with that funky floating cartridge.... I will be the first to admit heard much better!!!

 

[daveamkrayoguy]

Well you know? Entertainment and Industry are what I think don’t belong in the same sentence!

I will always love and will probably always be paying for and hopefully adding again to my beloved hard-copy media collection!

No matter what!



— Dave

 

[vacerator]

Nice Dave! I My first receiver was a Technics 12 watt model. SA-5060.

 

[phillymatt53]

I totally get it, while not the best maybe not the worst? I still love my New Vista Victrola with that funky floating cartridge.... I will be the first to admit heard much better!!!

Hi Drew,
That RCA system you've got was supposed to be one of their "top lines" systems.
But it was born when RCA was making changes within the company, with "solid state" transistor circuits.
And that record changer "floating cartridge" is very rare, because it's got a tiny "IC" in that silver floating disk to pre-amplify the cartridge signal. I have one in my old stock. The power supply for that IC is under the turntable and actually powered by a low voltage tap on the changer's motor.
Also, those record changers were poorly designed - the controls are difficult to operate without bumping fingers into the arm while it's on the arm rest.
Try switching the speed lever and see what I mean.
The earlier "Studiomatic" changers were better designed.

My 1963 RCA Victor console, re-designed by me back in 2010 is all tubes (18), and now has a nice Garrard changer with a magnetic cartridge, and custom speaker systems.
My snobby audiophile friends actually were stunned at it's performance, with one offering me $1K for it, which I politely turned down.

 

[phillymatt53]

Well you know? Entertainment and Industry are what I think don’t belong in the same sentence!

I will always love and will probably always be paying for and hopefully adding again to my beloved hard-copy media collection!
No matter what!
— Dave

Nice system Dave, but where's the 1960's Lava Lamp to complete the system?

 

[phillymatt53]

Nice Dave! I My first receiver was a Technics 12 watt model. SA-1050 maybe.

My first serious stereo receiver was a Panasonic SA-5800.
This model was right before Panasonic started the "upscale" product line of "Technics" (by Panasonic) - excellent build quality.

 

[vacerator]

Oh, nice RCA Matt! My aunt had a Zenith that size. Contemporary also, before the Allegro series with the 2.5 G tonearm. She and my mom adored Humperdink. I thought it sounded way better than our plastic portable avocado Silvertone.
I forgot to mention earlier that My 3 way floor speakers are KLH Research Ten from 1979. They are actually large bookshelf type with low pedestals and black glass inset tops. I think right after the Baron series. I chose them over OHM's from Tech Hifi. I've refoamed the woofers recently. I think my Technics was the Sa-5060 now that I think.

 

[cfz2882]

Current main house system consists of:
-Dual 1229 turntable from 1972: idler wheel drive,but a quite good one-platter is some heavy cast alloy and 4-pole motor has a magnet ring so runs synchronous when up to speed.The neon tube strobe silvered up long ago.
-Philips 7951 receiver,1980: US made(by whom i do not know,possibly Motorola) FM performance is kinda meh,Am is good and the amp is good.
-Revox B215 cassette:German made machine,1985 Brushed DC reel motors,BLDC main motors-no rubber belts or tires very good unit,but sonics might be 2nd to a 1981 Akai that is a fave in my cassette deck fleet.
-Pioneer speakers,1979,Japanese, ~10" woofers-some audio snobs poo-poo Japanese speakers,but sound good here

 

[vacerator]

Current main house system consists of:
-Dual 1229 turntable from 1972: idler wheel drive,but a quite good one-platter is some heavy cast alloy and 4-pole motor has a magnet ring so runs synchronous when up to speed.The neon tube strobe silvered up long ago.
-Philips 7951 receiver,1980: US made(by whom i do not know,possibly Motorola) FM performance is kinda meh,Am is good and the amp is good.
-Revox B215 cassette:German made machine,1985 Brushed DC reel motors,BLDC main motors-no rubber belts or tires very good unit,but sonics might be 2nd to a 1981 Akai that is a fave in my cassette deck fleet.
-Pioneer speakers,1979,Japanese, ~10" woofers-some audio snobs poo-poo Japanese speakers,but sound good here

Which Pioneer speakers? I've heard several from back in the day. I don't think it was their strong suite, but it all depends on room acoustics and what is driving them. I'm comparing them to Advent, JBL, and Cerwin Vega's from then. Jensen's weren't great either. Dual idler turntables were excellent!

 

[rinso]

This thread is based on my long-time experiences as a professional servicer of Home Entertainment Equipment, and my own personal equipment choices.
If any of it sounds "biased", it's only because I don't mince words. I like sharing the truth about such things to others in hopes that it'll save them money and any aggravation.
And, it's similar to the speaking out from others about Home Appliances and the current state of things.
So here goes......

We all want quality, and we all want to spend our money on something worthy.
But the industry mostly treats the public like silly puppets, catering to their conditioned lives with glorified advertizing and snazzy appearance.
I've been "in the guts" of literally thousands of products from TV's to high-end stereo stuff, along with "vintage" antiques/heirlooms that required special attention.

But as the decades progressed, I've noticed the so-called improvements and technology changes.
Some, were a good idea, others, not pretty.
The stuff sold these days in my opinion is garbage, in comparison to what I call "The Golden Years" of audio.
Those were from the early-late 1960's up to the late 1980's, centering on 1974 to 1980 as the peak years of "HiFi".

Look at what you're forced to buy these days, if you want something....
It may looks snazzy, and might even sound nice to your ears.
Digital processing can impress you.
Convenient bluetooth, streaming, etc., makes it more attractive, because you've been handed that stuff as a result of the slow conditioning process of society.

Then how come the substantial numbers of people wanting that vintage stuff again?
You know, the "Analog" stuff that used to be king.
I'll tell you.....
Because humans speak and hear in analog, not digital.
Once you add Digital to the mix, you're messing with the original sound.
Like I stated, processing analog is impressive to the ears, I know that.
But my trained ears can still, even at my age, tell the difference.
And no, it's not my mind doing tricks on me.
Listening to music in analog on analog equipment is and can be such a seductive and surprising experience that some have re-imagined again.
I hear people all the time telling me that.
Sure, I listen to CD's, and online to MP3's.
It's nice, and one can get used to that, even lazy.
But plop a record on a decent turntable..... voila...... something comes back to you that all those years of digital listening made you forget.

By the way, whenever you hear the mention of Tube equipment having a "warm sound", it's all in your head, something dreamed up by somebody on the internet because tubes have heated filaments which warm up and get hot.
My expensive testing equipment and analizing procedures don't have human ears or human biases stemming from internet talk to sway them.
And confirm what I'm saying.

I'm wondering if anyone here can understand what I'm trying to share, or feels the same way.
Thanks for reading.

Indded Matt. The stereo wars in the 70s were competitive and they were often rated conservatively and even surpassed the published spec's. The type of measuring equipment matters too. The power transformers were larger and that makes a big difference even at the same watt ratings. A new example is the Yamaha AS -1200 compared the S 701. The results are online by an independent reviewer. While only 10 watts difference between them, the s 701 doesn't quite double down on the power bandwidth in the middle gain with 100 watts/channel while the AS 1200 does with 90 watts. It has a torroidal transformer and larger power capacitors and a floating amp design. This comes with a premium price of $2,900 vs. $800. It also has VU meters. Weight is 48 lbs. and 27 lbs respectively.
I just couldn't afford it. Buying vintage restored is just as expensive and you only get a 90 day warranty usually. It's a risk buying a vintage as is unit for less and possibly having to spend hundreds of dollars for a repair later. I wasn't given approval for one. The new models are warranted 2 and 5 years which is likely also in the higher price.

I couldn't agree more, Matt. For most home listeners, did you know that 10-20 watts per channel is all that is really needed. And, I'm talking about REAL watts, not peak wattage or any of the other ways manufacturers measure their audio outputs. This deception started way back in the late 1960's.