2. misc-audio
  3. 1303487258

The downward spiral.....

I've loved listening to (and playing) music for the last 35 years. I was trained as a pianist and suspect that my ears are at least decent (even if they do stick out
a little more than I'd like...)

Like so many of us, I suspect, I have assembled more high-end systems that I can remember - heaven only knows how much money I've spent, how many
reviews I've pored over, how many times I've labored over cable-matching, AB comparisons, toeing in massive speakers just that final 1/16 inch to get the soundstage
just right, rearranging living rooms to minimize that nasty hump at 56 Hz etc etc. I'm sure many of you can relate...

Being a bit of a contrarian at heart I recently have been conducting the Ultimate Experiment - the Final Downgrade. A few months ago I came into possession of an
old pair of Quad 57s (now being rebuilt) with matching 303 power amp. As those who know these things, the sounds emanating from these devices was sublime.
It made me think. Here I was listening to simply beautiful music through some of the cheapest components I've ever bought. What if I continued my downward financial
progress?
Out went some very expensive tube amplification, German turntable, carbon fiber arm, expensive MC cartridge, Nordost cable, tube output SACD player etc. In came a Thorens TD125,
complete with SME 3009, V15III, and the cheapest decent CD player I could find (the original Rega Planet). For the phone/preamp I chose a pair of Pro-Ject components,
As soon as I can find a Quad 33 I'll grab it and do a little renovation, esp on the phono section. As the speakers were being now rebuilt I acquired an old pair of
Maggies (12QR) to tide me over. The interconnects are strictly mid-fi, and the speaker cable less than that. The new (non-ported) subwoofer was relatively expensive - about
$450, but not well-known.
I anticipate the cost of the whole system will be around $2300. The average age of the components will be 35 years old.

What am I losing? Certainly not money, that's for sure! Perhaps a few Hertz at the bottom end. Perhaps. What surprises me daily (I listen usually for about 4 hours a day to everything
between 12th century plainsong to rap and everything between) is that this relatively cheap and certainly very old-fashioned system does so much that is absolutely right. I feel no
pressing needs to upgrade anything; no tweaking necessary. The music comes through as I want.
In my spare time I still haunt the local high-end stores and listen to some ultra expensive gear: not once have I gone home with an axe to do The Right Thing to my '70s
system.

So, my question is a simple one. How much progress has there been since 1970? For the last thirty years I have firmly believed that each year has brought some progress.
Now I question this. As I write this I am listening to a record pressed in 1975 (Neville Marriner) and my happiness is complete. Am I losing my grip?
--
57s4me
tubegroover
2,320 posts
 
I really can't answer your question about progress when put into the context of the "sublime" midrange of Quad 57 and 63 speakers, is there really anything out there better? More dynamic maybe deeper bass for sure but musically engaging, I'm not too sure if you really want to connect to the music, good choice and enjoy!
meiwan
399 posts
 
I'm not sure high end audio has improved significantly over the last 20 years or so (except for sources maybe). Actually I find many of the newer pieces (speakers and amps) less appealing. They seem more analytical (perhaps more accurate) but less satisfying somehow. Like hi def TV, do we really want see the zits on the actors face?

I have also been back and forth over the past 30 years or so. I've finally (currently) very happily settled on a a moderately priced integrated amp playing a pair of 16 year old speakers. I don't see the need to upgrade, except 'for the fun of it'.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
aaronmadler
94 posts
 
I'm envious of both you and my Dad. My Dad is listening to a pair of Dahlquist DQ 10's that he bought in the 70's. I have gone through numerous speakers, amps, preamps, cd players, cables etc.

Lately, I find that with age and maturity, (I'm 48), I don't need the latest and greatest. Both of my family cars are approaching 6 years old each. Up until this point, I did not hold on to a car past 3 years. I got bored and needed another new toy.

It is similar with regard to audio. I revere the audiophile that is content listening to fine music on fine equipment and is satisfied rather than having to purchase the newest toy.
rdavwhitaker
173 posts
 
Boy, did your original post and question start me thinking. It seems to me that for the ordinary person looking to purchase equipment in order to appreciate music, and not the other way around (nice point, Onemug), there was a great deal of positive change from 1970 to the mid-80s -- partly thanks to the pressure brought to bear on manufacturers by the likes of Stereo Review and Julian Hirsch. During that period, the sound reproduction quality of equipment (both electronics and speakers) continuously got better, at least with respect to what you call "mid-fi" equipment -- that is, the stuff most ordinary folks like me bought for their dorm rooms and living rooms. The arrival of the Compact Disc was the crowning achievement of that era -- virtually no noise, more convenience, and less opportunity for damage or wear. But it seems to me that from the mid-80s until the arrival of iTunes and the iPod, nothing much changed.

For true hi-fi, I think there has also been improvement -- I still have an Apt Holman preamp, which at the time was considered an excellent product -- but even after having it completely rehabilitated, it doesn't sound as good as the modern preamps I own. But I think the improvement is less marked than with mid-fi, and I also agree with Onemug that we see the law of diminishing returns working in spades.

Today if I pick up one of the trade magazines, all any of them want to talk about is equipment most folks can't afford -- and to hear the magazines tell it, the more zeros there are in the price tag, the better the equipment is (I would give my eyeteeth to pick up The Absolute Sound some day and read "Yes, the Gargantua 2500 is a wonderful amp, but it costs $40,000 -- only an idiot would pay that when the Cambridge Audio 840w delivers 95% of the performance, and more convenience and adaptability, at 6% of the price"). I recently went to a dealer event and listened to a rig costing over $200,000.00 total, with the manufacturers reps present, and was completely unimpressed. If anything, it sounded worse, not better, than the equipment in my listening room.

So my take is that while there has been definite improvement in features, and convenience, and SOME improvement in sound with hi-fi, it hasn't been enough to make old Quads, or Maggies, or ARC SP-9s, or CJ 2250s, or any other older, quality equipment obsolete, so long as it still functions properly.

What's the moral? I'm not sure, except maybe that once the equipment got to the point where it reproduces the recorded sound clearly and cleanly, without significant distortion or noise, that the further "improvements" in sound quality have largely been illusory -- or at least not worth what the manufacturers now seem to want to charge for them.
trelja
3,223 posts
 
Excellent (and true!) topic.

For all of the expensive amps I own, not a one sounds as right or provides me with as much musical enjoyment as my (bone stock, but with modern parts) Dynaco ST70. More or less, the same is true of some of the Fried loudspeakers I own.

Oftentimes, today's components will show the sizzle (bookmatched veneers, double digit layers of finish, ridiculously baroque faceplates/heatsinks/casework/cosmetics, jewelry grade connectors, and of course, the obligatory blue LED) is more important than the steak.
More to discover