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.